Draft transcript - Thursday 21 May 2015First draft - subject to correction.Draft transcript - Thursday 21 May 2015Clause 4 Section 226 amended (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I say to the member who has just resumed his seat James Shaw before I talk specifically to clause 3 that I think what he asked is a really important question because it does go to the heart of why this legislation is being introduced what the Government is hoping to achieve and obviously why we are doing it under urgency. I want to address my contribution in relation to clause 3—Principal Act amended; “This Act amends the KiwiSaver Act 2006”—to three points. The first point is: what was the purpose of the principal Act? What was the point of the legislation as passed in 2006? The second point is: what is the purpose of the amendment that we are debating? The third point which again gets to the question that was just raised by my colleague from the Green Party is: why are we doing this under urgency? Unlike others who have referred to the legislation itself I referred back to the Hansard of the KiwiSaver legislation in 2006 and I found two really interesting points that I would like to draw to the attention of the Committee. The first point refers to some comments that Michael Cullen made when he introduced the legislation. He said: “The KiwiSaver Bill represents a landmark in social and economic legislation. Saving and investing is the foundation of the future wealth of our country and of us as individuals. KiwiSaver adds a new important element in the savings landscape providing a vehicle to encourage all working New Zealanders to set aside a portion of their earnings to fund their long-term income security.” That sounds pretty good to me. He went on to describe how it was the third in a set of measures that the Government of the time had introduced to restore integrity and security for older New Zealanders. The first measure was to restore the level of superannuation. I heard the Minister Gerry Brownlee crowing this morning about how National had put the level of superannuation up every year for the last 7 years. Well that is good—it is the law so I would hope that that is what the Government did actually. When we were in Government we made it the law because the previous National Government had cut the level of superannuation to a point where older New Zealanders just could not exist on what their level of superannuation was. The second tenet in the principal Act was obviously establishing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund a fund that I know has not received any contribution for years under the National Government. Another key point in our social and economic security for the future and there have been no contributions under the National Government. Tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Clause 3.Hon RUTH DYSON: —but nothing for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. And obviously the KiwiSaver scheme as set up by the principal legislation was the third tenet. If I go to the votes on the primary legislation the parties that voted for it were the New Zealand Labour Party New Zealand First the Green Party United Future and Progressive. They all voted for the introduction of KiwiSaver in the principal legislation that we are discussing under clause 3. The parties that voted against the establishment of a savings scheme that was so vital to our social and economic future were the New Zealand National Party—shock; is everyone shocked to hear that—the Māori Party and ACT. Well that was 2006. Not a lot has changed in that time except the numbers unfortunately. So those were the parties that voted for and against it. This legislation in my view goes absolutely against the point of the principal Act. Other contributions earlier in this debate have asked that very question: what is the status of an amendment to an Act that actually undermines the primary purpose of the principal Act? In my view what the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill does is to undermine the fundamental purpose of the principal Act. We call it an amendment in this debate—that is how it is described in clause 3 of the bill—but it takes away the very incentive that was at the heart of changing the savings culture in New Zealand and making it more possible for people to see the value of savings particularly people for whom saving is very hard. I am not—Clause 4 Section 226 amended (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to accept the closure motion. We have canvassed the very narrow provisions of this clause.[PV on closure motion clause 3—Ayes 63 Noes 57]Motion agreed to.[Continuation line: Clause 3 PV]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 stand part.[PV on clause 3—Ayes 63 Noes 57]Clause 4 Section 226 amended (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)A party vote was called for on the question That clause 4 be agreed to.[PV on clause 4—Ayes 63 Noes 57][Continuation line: Clause 5: Clark]Clause 5 Section 226 repealed (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North)Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to clause 5. Labour has moved a number of amendments which I think are well worth considering and would actually be worth having some debate on. The first is in the name of Kris Faafoi and it refers to the ability for the kick-start payment of $1000 to continue to be accessed by babies essentially. This is designed to ensure that those with newborns are encouraged to take up this scheme so that a savings fund can be established for the child as they grow up with the aspiration that out of they may afford their first house or they may in some way supplement themselves in retirement. However they do it it kicks off a savings habit and that of course was what the $1000 was intended to do. So that amendment in the name of Kris Faafoi a very good amendment would allow children up to the age of 6 months to be enrolled in the scheme and still be able to access that $1000 kick-start payment. The second amendment that has been moved is in the name of Jacinda Ardern. It moves that people who are starting a new job should be allowed to access that $1000 kick-start payment. These are all as you will appreciate variations on parts of what is being cut. They are preserving different things according to the principal aim of the Act which is to encourage a savings habit. This one here in the name of Jacinda Ardern makes it possible for people when they start a new job to receive the kick-start payment so they are off to a flying start in their savings regime. It will encourage them not to opt out because they will see the opportunity there to continue and grow their savings at the time they are thinking about those things—at the time they start a new job. The third amendment that is proposed is in the name of Annette King. It provides an option for people who have been in the same job for the whole time since the KiwiSaver scheme started—since 2006 perhaps or earlier—and who may well think to themselves having watched what has happened during the Budget that this kick-start thing is something that they want to pass by. They have been in the same job for a long time and if the Government takes away the right to get that kick-start $1000 payment for people who are starting a new job this enables them to say: “Well actually now I am going to grab that opportunity. I am going to grab that opportunity because my retirement savings are important to me.” These are all measures that are designed in some way to ensure that people can access that $1000 so that the half a million people we are told will miss out in the next 4 years are limited—so that there will not be half a million people who will miss out; it will be fewer. These are sensible amendments from Labour and I think that they are worthy of consideration if not lengthy debate. They are certainly worthy of consideration by this Committee and I think that members Opposite should think about voting in support of some of these if they really believe in their heart of hearts that they want to increase savings in this country.[Continuation line: Shaw]Clause 5 Section 226 repealed (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - JAMES SHAW (Green)JAMES SHAW (Green): I just wanted to follow on from David Clark’s contribution. The Green Party is also moving an amendment Supplementary Order Paper 81 to clause 5 of the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill which reads: “Replace clause 5 (page 2 lines 22 and 23) with: 5 Section 226 amended (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions) In section 226(1) replace “is a member or must become a member as provided by section 15(1)(b) or 36(1)(b)” with ‘is member or must become a member as provided by section 15(1)(b) or 36(1)(b) and holds a community services card issued pursuant to the Health Entitlement Cards Regulations 1993’.” The intention here is to retain the $1000 kick-start for people who hold a community services card. If you look at the original intention of the KiwiSaver Act it includes as set out in Section 3(1) that the purpose of the original Act is to support “asset accumulation by individuals who are not in a position to enjoy standards of living and retirement similar to those in pre-retirement.” In other words what we are trying to do is to say that if the Government is committed to reducing the cost of the overall KiwiSaver programme by cutting the $1000 kick-start contribution then at the very least the amendment should not undermine the original purpose of the Act which is to support asset accumulation by individuals who are not in a position to enjoy those standards of living so the amendment to retain the $1000 kick-start for people who hold community services cards would enable the original purpose of the Act to continue to still be fulfilled. We chose the community services cards as the proxy for low income. We realise that there are others—there may be others that have more specificity to them—but part of this to make it easy to administrate. So when someone is choosing to open a KiwiSaver if they are able to present their bank or KiwiSaver provider with a community services card then that is just very easy to administer as opposed to having to prove their income levels at the date at which they applied for the card and so on. We do not believe that this would add significant cost to the Crown because first so many people are already in KiwiSaver. There are about 600000 community services cardholders who are not already superannuitants. Many of those people will already be in KiwiSaver. Of the ones who are not in KiwiSaver some of them simply will not open an account because they do not believe that they have got the income to do so. But for those people who do then the incentive would remain in place. As we know the incentive scheme has worked extremely well so it would just ensure that those people retain some of that support My colleague Jan Logie earlier referred to an Inland Revenue Department report which pointed out that 92 percent of the public have recognised the $1000 kick-start incentive—that they were aware of it and that was a good reason for them to sign up. There are real substantial issues here to do with embedding inequality because if you are essentially saying to people that KiwiSaver is really honestly a preserve of the middle and upper classes and for people who are on lower incomes it does not really matter and we do not really care about getting them into the programme then in fact not only does that undermine the original intention of the whole KiwiSaver programme to start with it also further embeds and deepens inequality in this country. When people are in different starting positions and then some of them have got a very attractive KiwiSaver scheme and the rest do not then by the time they get to retirement age those who are on low incomes will be absolutely destitute whereas the wealth of the middle and upper income people will have grown over the course of their life. So we think that this Supplementary Order Paper to retain the $1000 kick-start for community services cardholders is a way—not the only way; but it is a way—of trying to prevent that deepening inequality from happening.[Continuation line: Smith]Clause 5 Section 226 repealed (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment)Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I want to make just a brief contribution and to answer some of the questions the member James Shaw has raised. First of all there is a certain irony about debating a bill about savings when the very purpose of this bill is to help get the Government’s books back into the black. And all I hear consistent with every one of the 7 years we have been the Government is criticism from the Greens and from Labour as to why we are not spending. I am yet to hear a single member opposite give an idea as to how the Government might save money and get the country into the black. Members on the Government benches firmly support encouraging people to save. The Budget for next year provides for $643 million of Government support for saving. But there is a very important difference. Do we subsidise people opening accounts? Or do we subsidise people to save? There is a difference. We are saying that providing Government support for saving is something we support. Just opening a bank account actually does not get us far. Now can I specifically respond to the question from James Shaw. James Shaw asked a very pertinent question. He claimed that the number of people in KiwiSaver will decline over the next year. So I checked with the officials. There are currently 2.4 million people in KiwiSaver. Can I make another interesting point. When KiwiSaver was introduced in 2006 Dr Cullen said that in the year 2015 “We project there will be 700000 people in KiwiSaver.” In other words our Government has been successful in better embedding a savings culture with three times as many people in KiwiSaver than what even Dr Cullen projected. But here is the rub and here is the answer for Mr James Shaw. Currently there are 2.4 million people in KiwiSaver. How many are projected to be in KiwiSaver in 1 year’s time? One hundred thousand people more. One hundred thousand people more Mr Shaw will be in KiwiSaver in 1 year’s time because the Government is providing ongoing subsidies amounting to $521 every year for a person in KiwiSaver. I want to make one further point because I would love to get an answer from members of the Opposition benches. I use this quote—it is a word for word quote—“Is it right that a person over 65 on a full-time income should get this income supplement? There is a fairness question there. I cannot commit to keeping New Zealand superannuation universal.” That is word for word by Andrew Little. Does David Parker agree with that? Does Annette King agree with that?Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It was my understanding that in the Committee stage of a debate we ask the questions and he answers them.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Not a point of order.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point of order by Annette King speaks volumes about the embarrassment on the faces of every one of those Labour members. Let me ask the question again. Do they agree with the statement from Mr Andrew Little: “I cannot commit to keeping New Zealand superannuation universal.”? Does Annette King agree with it? Does David Clark agree with it? Does the deputy leader agree with it? Their silence is stunning. The silence is stunning. Can a single Labour member put their hand up if they agree with Andrew Little. Can a single Labour member put their hand up if they agree with Andrew Little. Well can I come to my members. Is there a single member on National’s side who agrees and supports John Key’s statement? Could they put their hand up. Yes indeed. You see that is the difference. We are united. We know what we stand for. What we do not have is a single member of the Labour Party who will support the statement on superannuation from its own leader.[continuation line: Grant Robertson]Clause 5 Section 226 repealed (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): What an interesting contribution from Nick Smith. It is timely that the Minister mentioned who on that side of the House agreed with John Key. I wonder whether members on that side of the House agreed with John Key when he said the following: “The second issue that I raise is if Michael Cullen thinks that 25 percent of New Zealanders will have a serious KiwiSaver account in 5 years’ time he is deluded.” That was in 2006—in 2006. So hands up how many members on the National side of the House agree with John Key. Come on. There are no hands up. They do not agree with John Key one bit. I have got another option for them. I have got another option. Members on that side of the House either think Michael Cullen was deluded that there would be 25 percent in KiwiSaver or they agree with John Key when he said that Michael Cullen was dreaming about 25 percent. They are the two options. No one is putting their hand up. On that side of the House the guilt and the shame is that by the time the KiwiSaver Act passed in 2006 there was one party left in this House opposing KiwiSaver—one party. Can you guess which it was? Do you think it was the ACT Party? Was it the ACT Party?Hon Members: No.GRANT ROBERTSON: No. Was it the Māori Party?Hon Members: No.GRANT ROBERTSON: Was it New Zealand First?Hon Members: No.GRANT ROBERTSON: Was it the Greens?Hon Members: No.GRANT ROBERTSON: It was National. The only party left opposing KiwiSaver in 2006 was the National Party. That is what this is all about. That is what this is all about. It is that the National Party has never liked this scheme to allow ordinary hard-working New Zealanders to get some extra dignity in retirement. It wanted to keep that only for its mates who could already afford it not a scheme that actually gives all hard-working New Zealanders the chance for that little bit extra in retirement. Why not it says take away the incentive? Why not take away the incentive? The very people for whom that will make the biggest difference are those low-income New Zealanders those young New Zealanders who find it hard to begin saving. We can come back to John Key because he had an awful lot to say about the KiwiSaver Act 2006. I will also ask the National Party members whether they agree with the following statement John Key made about Michael Cullen in 2006 and the KiwiSaver Act: “If the Minister of Finance had not been so lazy he could have gone and had a good look at what President Bush did.” Because that is always a good idea is it not? Go and have a look at what President Bush did. That went well! There are no hands up on the National Party side of the House. They do not support John Key on that one either. Here is another one. Here is another from John Key. He said: “Michael Cullen knows full well that when there is a mortgage diversion”—Hon Dr Nick Smith: What year?GRANT ROBERTSON: 2006. Keep up Dr Smith. 2006. I am sorry Dr Smith does not remember that because at that exact moment John Key was trying to take over the leadership of the National Party and Dr Smith was doing Bill English’s numbers. That is why he does not remember. He was too busy doing Bill English’s numbers. Here is what John Key said: “Michael Cullen knows full well that when there is a mortgage diversion a savings account is turned into a checking account.” Rubbish! National members are not here today saying “Let’s get rid of that.” They are not here today saying “Let’s not have people borrow for their first home.” What they are doing is what they think they can get away with which is undermining the incentives to be in the scheme. And the reason we are here under urgency the reason the National Party put this bill the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill in as retrospective legislation is that this incentive works.[continuation line: That is why]GRANT ROBERTSONThat is why because it knows if it waited and the bill went through the normal process and there was a proper select committee process thousands of New Zealands would sign up.Chris Bishop: Past tense—it worked.GRANT ROBERTSON: And just how bad would that be Chris Bishop if thousands of New Zealanders got to enjoy being part of a savings culture? He would rather cut them off at the knees. The National Party has always hated KiwiSaver and this is just another example.Clause 5 Section 226 repealed (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! Just a moment—I will take a call in a moment. I just want to make the point that the last two speakers Nick Smith and Grant Robertson strayed a heck of a long way around the park and have given each other a slap. It was one each way and now we are coming back to a more confined debate giving leeway for the fact that there is not a select committee stage and taking into account all of the things I am sure there would be numerous points of order about if I failed to mention them in my preamble to the next call.[Continuation line: Jan Logie]Clause 5 Section 226 repealed (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - JAN LOGIE (Green)JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to make a few points in relation to the substantive clause of this bill.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh not briefly again!JAN LOGIE: I missed Mr Brownlee’s comment. I figure that is probably a good thing. I would like to just address the Minister Nick Smith’s comments though that he thought it was ironic we seem to have so much concern on this side of the Chamber about debt when this was about trying to keep the Government’s books in the black. Well he may have noticed they are not in the black Minister. They have not been in the black for quite a while like ever—Hon Nanaia Mahuta: 7 years.JAN LOGIE:—oh 7 years gosh and you still have not managed it. Sorry Minister it is salt in the wounds I imagine. I would like to just point out to this Committee that if we are looking at debt there is actually a little bit of a history lesson and I do think it is very relevant to this piece of legislation and what this bill is doing. Government debt per capita in 1990 was $10423—no that is household sorry. In 2008 it was $2408—this is Government debt per capita. In 2014 now under this Government’s watch it is $13289. For a Government that is supposedly so concerned about the Government’s books and levels of debt you have been overseeing a massive increase in the level of Government debt from a very low level when you came to power of only $2408 per person. I want to also call out both of the main parties in this Chamber actually around the trend we have seen of household debt and of individual debt in this country which is specifically relevant to this bill. In 1992 the average household debt in this country was $33920. Now in 2015 the average household debt is $128050 and that has been inflation adjusted. We see here a pattern where in fact I would argue Government-per-capita debt went from I think too high levels down to very low levels because it had been transferred to the individual. We are seeing that in the very high levels of personal debt through student loans and increasingly in housing through speculation and the Government’s lack of management of the housing market. They are unsustainable levels of personal debt. Now we are seeing under this Government also escalating Government debt. So both sides of that picture are doing badly. The Government is not focused on getting into surplus. It is not focused on the well-being of our society as a whole. I do want to make a point here around income—Chris Bishop: Let the professor have a go.JAN LOGIE: Sorry? Letting the professor have a go? Well we claim our knowledge in different ways in this party. I would like to just talk a little bit about intergenerational inequality in relation to this bill and to reference some common understandings of generational wealth and distribution. I am just thinking again about the situation we are in in New Zealand and the importance of saving schemes. After so much of the costs of participating in society have been passed on to individuals there is a common understanding that wealth distribution is strongly affected by life cycle. It makes sense that when you are younger you earn less and you have less wealth. There is an expectation that you will accumulate that over time as you pay off your student debts and that you have the ability to earn more and that you get your house and you pay it off. So you get to over that cycle increase your wealth. Well I just want to think about that. That is the traditional way it has been done and that we have thought of it. The reality is now the average woman who has a university degree will be 50 before she pays off her student debt and we have increasing unlikelihood of ever being able to buy a house for young people in this country. It is the abandoned generation. Now on top of this—[Continuation line: Fletcher Tabuteau]Clause 5 Section 226 repealed (Crown contribution: kick-start contributions)Speech - FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First)FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): This will be a short speech—[Interruption] Again I would like to take the opportunity to thank the National backbenchers. Specifically in clause 5 section 226 (3) of the bill New Zealand First has put forward the proposal that we replace the $1000 with $500. The reasoning behind that is those Government members and Ministers have stood before this Committee they have argued against their own logic and they have told us that they cannot afford it. They cannot afford it despite the fact that they will not acknowledge that they have taken $7 billion in revenue out of our income stream with tax cuts for the high-income earners. They cannot afford it despite the fact that they have grown Government debt from next to nothing when they came in to approximately $80 billion today—approximately $80 billion. What I am asking those members to do is to show New Zealanders some compassion. They would not agree that we give some New Zealanders some time. No we cannot give them time to adjust to these changes—that would be abhorrent! The logic behind their changes they argue was $1000 is not a cost-effective incentive. They are saying: “Let’s take it away.” But they will not give New Zealanders time to sign up and use it. So they are countering their own argument. New Zealand First has said well OK if $1000 is too much to contribute to a New Zealander’s start-up into their lifelong saving habits then show a little bit of compassion. Show a little bit of understanding.[Continuation line: Come down off that high horse and halve it]FLETCHER TABUTEAUCome down off that high horse and halve it—halve it. Make it $500. Give them something. Members on this side of the Chamber spoke about the motivational aspect of this number. It does make a difference. National please show some compassion.[Continuation line: James Shaw]New clause 5A Section 226 amended (Crown contribution: eligibility under 6 months of age)Speech - JAMES SHAW (Green)JAMES SHAW (Green): I just wanted to respond to the Minister Nick Smith who I am grateful actually responded to one of my questions. That has been a rare treat during the course of the debate—actually having a response to any of the questions that we have put. I just wanted to check that the Minister said that in a year’s time 100000 more people will have signed up to KiwiSaver—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Correct.JAMES SHAW:—because the member tax credit will be remaining in place. So that incentive still remains within the scheme which I understand. But the Inland Revenue Department report said that the $1000 kick-start contribution was the most effective incentive of the package of incentives within the scheme. I just wanted to refer to the regulatory impact statement which also said that if you were to for example halve the member tax credit then in the next financial year you would save something along the lines of $339 million whereas removing the kick-start saves $175 million. So just halving the member tax credit would actually save more money than removing the kick-start and the kick-start from all the evidence that we have seen so far is actually the more effective component in terms of getting people into the programme. I am just a bit concerned about some of the evidence that we have seen. I recognise that because we are in an urgency process and we are not able to go through the normal standards of scrutiny and hearing from experts that some of the evidence is thin on the ground but some of the other things that the regulatory impact statement says give me some cause for concern including page 8.[Continuation line: It says that: “The analysis has focused on fiscal savings from changes to]JAMES SHAWIt says that “The analysis has focussed on fiscal savings from changes to KiwiSaver.” We have heard many times over the Government make its case for making fiscal savings for the Crown as opposed to responding to some of the concerns about impact on New Zealanders. It goes on to say: “We have not undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the effects of these policy changes on other policy issues which have been discussed in the context of KiwiSaver changes in the past.” It says in section 52: “We have not considered the extent to which a reduction in the generosity of the kick start and annual member tax credits will affect the future success (or otherwise) of the HomeStart policy.” In section 55 it says: “it is highly unlikely that the target effectiveness can be materially improved if the target group remains as defined by the Act.” So in other words the principal purpose of the Act is being undermined by this piece of legislation. We get that this will save the Government money. We understand that and we understand the pressure that the Government is under and has put itself under to reduce the deficit and eventually to get the Government books back into the black. We get that but there are still some real questions about why the Government has chosen the particular mechanism it has in removing the kick-start rather than other routes that it might have chosen. We have not yet heard a response to the question of why it is that the Government is implementing this immediately as opposed to over 6 or 12 or 18-month window to incentivise those who are currently not in the scheme to get into the scheme. We have not yet heard an answer to what the Government’s plan is to increase the savings rate once the incentive to do so is removed. We have not yet heard a response to the ANZ chief economist who said that removing the incentive will reduce the rate of take-up—that was actually my concern that the rate of take-up was going to be reduced—and if the Government disagrees with the ANZ chief economist then what is the plan to maintain or increase take-up in the scheme in the future? We have not yet heard a plan for how we handle some of the intergenerational equity issues that my colleague Jan Logie was speaking to. And we have not yet heard a response to why the KiwiSaver is being cut now but the rest of the hardship package does not kick in until the next financial year—why is there a gap there? So there are still I am afraid a number of questions that we do not have answers to but I do thank the Minister for his substantive response earlier.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81 in the name of James Shaw to clause 5 be agreed to.New clause 5A Section 226 amended (Crown contribution: eligibility under 6 months of age)Speech - JAMES SHAW (Green)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The question now is that clause 6 stand part. The question is that the Minister’s tabled—one moment. Sorry members—new run sheet.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kris Faafoi be agreed to:Insert the following clause after clause 4:5A Section 226 amended (Crown contribution: eligibility under 6 months of age)In section 226 insert the following subsection before subsection (1A):The Crown must pay 1 contribution to the first KiwiSaver scheme of which a person is a member provided that person is 6 months of age or younger when they become a member of a KiwiSaver scheme.New clause 5BThird ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move That the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill be now read a third time. As KiwiSaver approaches its eighth birthday it is now time to let the scheme be more about people saving for their own retirement and less about Government top-ups. This bill therefore proposes to remove the incentive payment of $1000 paid by the Government to all new enrolees in the scheme and thereby improve the value for money of the scheme. In short we want the Government’s support to be for not opening an account but rather actually for people saving. This change takes effect at 2 p.m. on the date the Budget was read on 21 May. People enrolled in the scheme before this will as a matter of fairness receive their $1000 kick-start contribution. There is always that 3-month wait period and that will still apply. There have been some pretty ridiculous comments from members opposite that somehow this bill should not have been put through with a Budget measure. That is about as sensible as saying that tax changes or increases in alcohol taxes or other such measures should not take effect. We all know what that would do. It would result in a sudden rush of people simply taking the opportunity of having forward knowledge. The contribution from Dr Clark actually just shows how inadequate he is to Government that if you give people forward notice of rules changing then people simply take short-term advantage and that is not to anybody’s advantage. I sat in this Parliament through nine Budgets under Labour where such changes were made and put through as a Budget measure. This bill does not affect other aspects of the scheme and KiwiSaver members will continue to receive employer contributions and the Government-provided member tax credits of $521 million per year. That is the Government is going to continue to subsidise KiwiSaver schemes to the order of $640 million each year.[Continuation line: As always I am grateful for the efforts of those who have]Hon Dr NICK SMITHAs always I am grateful for the efforts of those who have contributed towards the passage of this bill. I want to thank the officials for their work on the policy development. I thank the drafters. This is a bill that is about making choices in a Budget. There is a certain irony that members opposite always want to vote for measures like hardship help for children but they are not prepared to vote for the other changes that make those measures financially sustainable and that is why it is an important part of the Budget. The last point I wish to make in this debate is about the most telling part of the debate. In the last 48 hours these very powerful eight words that will ripple shock through my electorate of Nelson amongst the 700000 receivers of national superannuation and I want to conclude with these words—the words of Andrew Little yesterday: “I cannot commit to keeping New Zealand Superannuation universal.” Those simple eight words speak volumes about what the members opposite want to do to the security of the retirement arrangements for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. [Interruption] I have to say to Mr Robertson that those eight words from Mr Little will guarantee me increased support in my Nelson electorate at the next election. I already have received emails from Grey Power members who are terrified by what those eight words mean and I just simply say to members opposite that when they are dealing with the issue of superannuation they should state very clearly whether they agree with Mr Little’s statement yesterday: “I cannot commit to keeping New Zealand Superannuation universal.” That is an answer I am looking forward to hearing in this third reading debate.[continuation line: Grant Robertson]New clause 5BSpeech - GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): There is one member sitting in the House right now who knows all about how it feels to stop superannuation from being universal and that member is Nick Smith. He was here in the 1990s putting on the surcharge and getting asset testing in place. If there is any member who understands what it means to rip apart universal superannuation it is Nick Smith. That is also the record of the National Party in terms of this piece of legislation. Let us not let anyone watching misunderstand that when KiwiSaver went through Parliament in 2006 there were one or two parties that had some concerns about it in the first reading and the votes were a bit split. The Greens and New Zealand First supported Labour’s bill all the way through. By the time we go to the third reading of the KiwiSaver Bill one party was left opposing it.Hon Ruth Dyson: Who was that?GRANT ROBERTSON: The National Party. That was who was opposing and it has consistently undermined the KiwiSaver system until we come here today with this commitment from the National Party to take an incentive to saving away from New Zealanders. I went to a lot of electorate meetings during the 2014 electoral campaign. Wellington Central is an electorate where there are plenty of interested people who come out—Chris Bishop: There’s two a night.GRANT ROBERTSON: —that is right—week after week. I think we had about 25 electorate meetings and I listened intently every night to Paul Foster-Bell and occasionally when he was indisposed to Chris Bishop. I listened intently. James Shaw was there. He will back me up on this: at not one of those meetings was there a reference to the fact that this would be happening that KiwiSaver would be undermined and that the incentive would be taken away. Not once was that mentioned in the election campaign. Not once was it mentioned in the 6 months that have occurred since then. The National Party in a desperate clawing bid to make next year’s surplus look like it exists has decided to do this because this measure today will save the Government $175 million next year. And what is the figure of the surplus? It is $176 million. So there is a $1million gap. You have heard about the Swedish rounding that happens when you are at the supermarket and they round up and down. Well this is the “English rounding” when you are getting to a surplus so there is a $1 million one after the $175 million has been counted from this. This is a broken promise. This is a broken promise alongside a series of other broken promises in the Budget—the surplus one for example. There was a promise that we would have no new taxes to which we will come very shortly. Apparently there were to be no new taxes; now we have three. So that is another broken promise. John Key stood up in this House and said that debt would be paid down this year. No it will not. [Interruption] In fact the Budget documents tell us Mr O’Connor that it will be 2019 before any debt will be paid down. It will be $93 billion by 2019 as well. That is another broken promise and this bill is a broken promise. At this time in the economic cycle this is the thing that New Zealanders will come to understand. This is as good as it gets—3 percent growth this year down to 2.4 percent by the end of the forecast cycle. Dairy prices are not recovering. There is no sign of a plan to grow exports—they are flat-lining as well. This is as good as it gets and at the time when this is good as it gets what does National so? It takes to KiwiSaver. That is its plan. There is no plan to grow the economy in this Budget. What we have is a political management Budget rather than a Budget to grow the economy and if there was any symbol of that more it would be this bill. This bill takes away from the future. It steals from future generations $1000. If there was any look to the future in this bill it would be about initiatives to increase savings.David Bennett: Oh more spending. More spending.GRANT ROBERTSON: Here we go—David Bennett says it is more spending. This is $1000 to give people some dignity in retirement. Mr Bennett have you got KiwiSaver? He is the one over there who does not. He is the one over there who does not have KiwiSaver. The rest of them all took their $1000. I think Todd Barclay was about 2 years old when the bill went through. He got his $1000 but they want to deny that to the rest of New Zealanders. At the very peak of the economic cycle with 3 percent growth we have a deficit. In 2006 we had 3 percent growth in New Zealand. We had a surplus of billions and unemployment at under 4 percent. Now with growth rate of 3 percent we have a deficit and we have unemployment nudging up towards 6 percent. This is as good as it gets. It goes downhill from here and on the other side of the House there is no plan to grow the economy.Chris Hipkins: Look at “Benson and Hedges” sitting together.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right; a great combination Mr Hipkins. The thing about KiwiSaver is that it has been an enormous success. In 2008 when National came into Government it had already worked out after opposing it in 2006 that it was an enormous success so National members made the commitment that there would be no major changes. Well there have been eight. This is the eighth change. This is another broken promise in a series of broken promises. But National said there would be no major changes and that is because KiwiSaver has been a runaway success. Every member of this House will recognise that New Zealand’s savings rate over many generations has been poor. We have not been good savers. One of Michael Cullen’s many significant legacies to this country is that he took the initiative to turn that round and despite John Key standing up in Parliament in 2006 and saying that Michael Cullen was dreaming deluded and in la-la land if he thought a quarter of New Zealand would have KiwiSaver it has vastly exceeded the expectation. It has vastly exceeded the doomsaying from John Key. That is why KiwiSaver has been successful. But how unfair it is that if you were lucky enough to sign up on Wednesday to KiwiSaver you got the $1000 kick-start? Young families here in Wellington that I know of have been really excited about getting their kids involved just after they are born. They were signing them up. If they were lucky enough that they did that on Wednesday great but if it was Thursday—gone even though the legislation has not even passed yet. There were amendments put up by members on this side to say to the National Party that it should at least give people a chance so how about extending it out for a year or even 6 months. That was turned down. It was turned down because fundamentally this $1000 kick-start has been wildly successful at encouraging people to join the scheme.[continuation line: It is those people who need the kick-start the most]GRANT ROBERTSONIt is those people who need the kick-start the most who will be the most affected by this: those on low incomes. The truth is that the choice to become a saver is a difficult one when you are on a low income. We know that it has got a huge long-term benefit for people. We know that it has got a huge long-term benefit for people but it is a big challenge when you are on a low income. So the $1000 kick-start is the thing that makes the difference. Actually someone told John Key this on the day after the Budget. A young woman at a teen parent unit—I saw it on the television—saying after she had met John Key that she wanted to get into that scheme but she just had not had the money to do it and the $1000 has been taken away. That is exactly the person whom today the National Government is ripping $1000 out of their pocket. The other people are the younger generation. I think it is exciting that when young babies are born their parents say: “Let’s start the nest egg today.” That is great. That is called building a savings habit. Cameron Bagrie the Chief Economist at the ANZ does not often agree with the Labour Party but he today has come out and said that the reason why we have got the incentive is to actually start the habit of savings. The problem is that if you get to 18 or if you get to 20 and you have not got that account set up with that $1000 then there will be much less of a chance that you will carry on with that. So they are the two groups that the National members can reflect on as they sit over there that they are taking opportunity away from today. They are taking $1000 away from those low-income earners and from those younger people. We have had a lot of preaching from that side of the House from their late conversion to wanting to do something about child poverty. Well here is something you could do: actually give people on low incomes the chance to get that $1000 and get that savings habit under way. This bill undermines one of the great retirement savings initiatives of New Zealand and the National Government should be ashamed of it.[Continuation line: David Bennett]New clause 5BSpeech - DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East)DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is outrageous that that member Grant Robertson gets up and says these things when his leader wants to kick the people in the guts when they get to their superannuation. He does not want to give New Zealanders the ability to retire in dignity; he wants to take away their hard-earned retirement savings by taking away their ability to get universal superannuation in New Zealand. That member said that giving $1000 to anyone who signs up to a bank account gives them dignity in retirement. The previous speaker who will speak again said his reason for having the $1000 is to make them feel good. That is the economic rationale behind the Labour Party: to give everybody who signs into an account $1000. The Inland Revenue Department has just put out a report on KiwiSaver. This report said that 38 percent of people who have signed up have never contributed since. Nanaia Mahuta says that is only the young people who have signed up for it. That cannot be the case because two-thirds of people who should be in KiwiSaver—low-income New Zealanders who should be saving for their retirement—are not in KiwiSaver. The people who are in KiwiSaver are the middle and high-income earners whom Labour wants to give a thousand bucks to in order to give them dignity in retirement and to make them feel good. That is the Labour Party of old that is the Labor Party of Australia and that is the Labour Party that fails and is not good for New Zealanders or for savings going forward. The members are quiet because they know that that is the reality of what is going on. Their petty politics—they come into this room and try to sell to the New Zealand public that they are some kind of glorious party that would give them a thousand bucks. Well every time you give a thousand bucks to every New Zealander that signs up for an account you take $500 million off our accounts. When you do that you put New Zealand further into debt. That is the thing that the Labour Party is advocating for. New Zealanders need sensible economic management. If we are going to spend money in these times we spend it on the people who need it for the first time in 43 years; we do not go out giving handouts to people in the middle and higher income earners just to make them feel good and to give them dignity in their retirement.[Continuation line: David Clark]New clause 5BSpeech - Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North)Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Well that member who just took his seat David Bennett was in a lather but he has overlooked a large number of relevant points. He really really has misunderstood this bill. I guess that is what we have come to expect from him.Kris Faafoi: He hasn’t read it.Dr DAVID CLARK: He may not have read it. He certainly has not read any behavioural economics as he just admitted then in his speech. What that member is going to have to face when he goes back to his electorate office are questions from hard-working New Zealanders who are trying to get ahead. The effect of this bill is that over 1700 people per year in his electorate of Hamilton East—over 1700 people per year—will miss out on that $1000 kick-start. I expect a whole lot—Hon Nanaia Mahuta: How many?Dr DAVID CLARK: Over 1700 per year will miss out on the kick-start in his electorate. I expect a few of them will come and ask him some hard questions. They will say: “Mr Bennett how come you and your National MP colleagues have taken this $1000 and then stopped it for everybody else after you?”. That is what the people in Hamilton will be saying. They will be saying it around the country. They will be saying it in Clutha-Southland. If they can track Todd Barclay down they will be saying: “Todd Barclay how come you took that $1000 kick-starter payment and now you’re shutting it off for 1700 people from our electorate every year for ever more?”. That is what they will be asking. They will be asking Mark Mitchell in Rodney. They will be asking how come you Mark Mitchell took away that $1000 for ever more even though you took it for yourself. Seventeen hundred people per year will miss out in Rodney and it will be no different in any other electorate. It will add up to 7000 people in every electorate in this country over the next 4 years who will miss out on this payment because of this Government’s refusal to tackle the long-term savings problem of New Zealand. The Government is all about getting to some kind of sham surplus today because it has mismanaged the economy so badly—so badly. There is a $1 million—sorry I wish it was $1 million! There is a $1 billion black hole that has opened up between last Budget and this Budget. That is the mismanagement of this Government. It is short on vision and has failed to achieve its central election campaign promise. What was its central election campaign promise? Well do we need any reminding? The Government members said they would bring the books back into surplus this year. They have failed again. For the seventh Budget in a row the National Government has failed to achieve a surplus despite making it its central campaign promise. This is a Government that is failing on its promises and is losing the trust of New Zealanders. New Zealanders were being promised a wage rise as well. The Government said their wages would go up by $7000 over time. In the Budget we heard Bill English kick that can down the road for another 3 years. Always jam tomorrow—another broken promise. It reminds us of the promise not to increase GST. John Key said they would not increase GST. After that election he put it up to 15 percent. New Zealanders are counting the broken promises from this Government. There is another one: that we will increase exports to 40 percent of GDP. Well they are down below 30 percent now and dropping and projected to drop further next year. The Government members are not getting this economy back on the right foot. They are mismanaging the economy and they are taking from the pockets of children—taking from the pockets of children—to pay for their economic mistakes today. They are robbing the future of the children to pay for their economic mistakes today. This is a Government that is out of ideas. It is out of touch. Those members might as well resign actually and give us an election sooner because they have no new ideas. They are failing to deliver on their promises. This measure is reducing savings at a time when we actually need an increase in savings. It is a time when we need long-term thinking not the “short-termism” that this Government is putting forward. It has failed to support the regions it has failed to diversify the economy it has failed to address the Auckland housing bubble it has failed to develop the skills of New Zealand workers and it is failing our economy more and more over time. This is a Government out of ideas and this is its big idea in its Budget: a new tax. Let us not forget National campaigned on no new taxes and we have got three in this Budget alone. This is a Government that is so so out of touch it thinks it can break those promises and arrogantly carry on and then pass this legislation under urgency not allowing New Zealanders to have a say on it. Well we heard the Financial Services Council come out today and say that this bill is like robbing the kids’ piggy bank to go down to the pub for a beer—robbing the kids’ piggy bank to go down to the pub for a beer. That is the kind of vision we have from this Government. Why will it not stand up and be counted? New Zealand is suffering as a consequence—the seventh deficit in a row after nine surpluses from the Labour Government. This is economic mismanagement like we have never seen before. Those members should hang their heads in shame and they are and rightly so.[Continuation line: Chris Bishop]New clause 5BSpeech - CHRIS BISHOP (National)CHRIS BISHOP (National): During the course of the debate over the last couple of days some very very silly things have been said by Labour members and members opposite. We had Andrew Little’s comment about how he cannot commit to keeping New Zealand superannuation universal. We have had Grant Robertson’s commitment to bring back the $1000 kickstart. But the one that takes the cake is the comment made by the member who just spoke which was that the Government should resign and we should have an early election. Really? I mean come on! After the worst Budget reply speech probably since Parliament started sitting in New Zealand ladies and gentlemen—after the worst Budget reply speech a party in total disarray with David Cunliffe  David Parker  and Grant Robertson doing the numbers—do these guys opposite really want an early election? And after a Budget that raises benefit levels for the working poor and the poor in our society for the first time in 43 years—do these guys really want an early election? I do not think so. So that is going to take the cake in terms of silly things said by members opposite. It has been a very strange debate in the Parliament because what you have in the course of this debate on this KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill is you have the Labour Party arguing for a form of middle-class welfare and arguing against a Budget that helps the most vulnerable in our society. It is some sort of weird parallel universe and what does it say about their priorities? What does it say about the sense of priority of the Labour members opposite when they are willing to defend something that is sure nice to have but not necessary. And they argue against a Budget that delivers support and help for those who most need it. It is a very good Budget which I and members on this side of the House are proud to support. It is a strange day in Parliament. Mr Clark keeps asserting that this Government is mismanaging the economy. Well actually something interesting happened in the month of April 2015. April 2015 marks the first month since April 1991 that more people have moved from Australia to New Zealand than the other way. So a hundred people net gain in migrants from Australia to New Zealand. And why is that? Members opposite will say the Australian economy is not doing so well; that is true relative to us. But it also highlights the importance of having a strong and fast-growing economy and that is what we are doing. So nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is another bill put forward by the Government in order to continue to strengthen the New Zealand economy and as part of a suite of measures as part of the Budget to continue the New Zealand economy’s growing strongly. I commend the bill to the House.[Continuation line: James Shaw]New clause 5BSpeech - JAMES SHAW (Green)JAMES SHAW (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party on this third reading of the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill . I am an Opposition member of Parliament . I do not like being oppositional for the sake of it—I do not believe in tribalism. But as a member of the Opposition I do believe that my role is to challenge the Government and to hold it to account. So during the course of this debate—I have actually tried to treat this as an actual debate where we actually try to find out what the Government is thinking—I have asked a number of questions I think in a fairly reasonable tone and I think that they are fairly reasonable questions. I do want to acknowledge that some of those questions have been responded to. I would like to start by just responding to some of those questions. One of the questions that I asked was why would you cut the kickstart for KiwiSaver now rather than the member tax credit or rather than reduce the member tax credit when that would both save more money and keep in place the incentive that most people actually recognise. Nick Smith did respond to that. He said that we are doing it now because we want to incentivise people not just for opening an account but for actual savings which is a pretty reasonable response. I understand that. But if people are responding to opening the scheme because of the $1000 kickstart then what you can predict is that fewer people are actually going to be opening the account in the future. What we know is that there are a lot of people aspirational people who are not earning a great deal now but hope to earn more in the future who have opened accounts because of the kickstart programme. They may be dormant at the moment but these are people who want to earn more in the future and can see a pathway that when they will they will have at least a little bit put away to start with. The second question that I asked was did the Government consider leaving the kickstart in place for a period of time—say 6 12 18 months—to enable people who are not currently enrolled to have the opportunity to enrol or to enable people who are partially through the process of enrolling to have a chance to actually complete their enrolment. Again Minister Smith said: “Well we did not want a rush to take advantage of the programme.” If we did not want people to take advantage of the programme we would not have set it up in the first place. That is the whole point of the incentive scheme is to get people to take advantage of the programme. So to me that argument holds no weight. Related to that why cut the KiwiSaver now but delay the rest of the hardship budget package? In other words why take this away now and give people that gap where they are screwed from both ends? Somebody referred to this as middle-class welfare. But can I just say that question was not answered by any speaker from the Government side at any point during this debate. That leads me to the other five questions which remain unanswered. As I said I think I have tried to ask—these are pretty reasonable questions in the spirit of holding the Government to account and at the very least finding out what it is thinking. During the course of the debate no one—no one—has even attempted to try and respond to these questions. So I will ask them again. New Zealand is 22nd out of 24 OECD countries for savings. Cutting the KiwiSaver incentive reduces the savings rate. What is the Government’s plan to increase savings? There is no plan there does not seem to be a plan; we have not heard one yet. Next question: the ANZ chief economist says that removing the KiwiSaver incentive will reduce the rate of take-up. What is the plan to maintain or increase the rate of take-up in KiwiSaver? I have not heard an answer to that question. There is no plan. Next question: how does reducing the KiwiSaver take-up rate impact intergenerational equity issues relating to today’s working parents essentially paying for three generations’ worth of costs? How does it deal with the change in the dependency ratio from 7:1 today to 2:1 in 30 years’ time? No one has responded to that question. Next question: the Government is reducing the short-term deficit by raiding New Zealand’s retirement scheme again. What is the plan for long-term—long-term—financial sustainability? Nobody has responded to that question. I know that it is a Saturday and that we are under urgency and not all that many people watch Parliament TV. There have been a few people in the gallery and thank you for coming and watching. But it seems extraordinary to me that we could pass a piece of legislation of this much importance to this many New Zealanders which is about the long-term financial viability of the country and its residents and receive no answers to any of those questions. The Government is being completely unaccountable in passing this legislation. It is lazy to not be responding to these questions. It is arrogant to be relying on your numbers rather than attempting to respond to these questions. Like I said before I think that these are reasonable questions I have tried to ask them in a reasonable way and I think I have asked most of them about four or five times just in case anybody wanted to actually respond to them. There are only a couple of pieces of evidence—of actual evidence—that we have seen in the House today in relation to the bill. One is the regulatory impact statement . And in the regulatory impact statement it says in three or four different places that they did not consider any of the impacts of this legislation beyond the financial impact on the Government’s books. In other words we have no idea what this is going to do to New Zealand savings to the New Zealand population or anything other than the impact on the Government’s books. We have no idea what the impact is. The other piece of information that we have got is a 2011 report from Inland Revenue  which said that to remove the incentive would gut the programme. So we have seen no positive arguments other than to get the Government’s books back into black—an admirable objective and I am fine with that notion—but other than that we have seen no evidence relating to anything else in terms of the impact of this scheme. And the only evidence we have seen is that it will have a negative impact. For all those reasons the Green Party cannot support this legislation. Thank you.[Continuation line: Fletcher Tabuteau]New clause 5BSpeech - FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First)FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): As a new member of this term I cannot believe the audacity of this Government and its members. I just do not know what is left for this Government to do to meaningfully address our growing trade deficit for example. It is a Government of members who stand in front of the people of this country and tell us how important growing our export businesses are but then they will not stand up in front of the people of this country and tell them that real exports figures are going backwards. I just do not know what is left for this Government to do that is meaningful to address the Government’s own growing debt. It is spiralling out of control. The Government members tell us it is fiscally responsible and it has admonished this side of the House for being apparently irresponsible themselves. But in their own books—their own books—which they obviously do not open very often their debt continues to spiral out of control. They dare not stand there and tell New Zealanders that our per-person debt is $19000 nearly $20000. They cannot stand there and tell us that that is fiscally sound. Even in the time of Muldoon’s Think Big projects the per-person debt was half of that. These masters of fiscal management have overseen a growth in debt from next to nothing to $80 billion. They should not accuse this side of the House of distorting the truth. Someone is going to have to deal with this unsustainable debt and it will not be that Government. Business commentators have already described this Budget as piecemeal and reactive. If there is a plan behind this Budget if there is foresight and meaningful consideration given to the future of this country then the Prime Minister and his team have hidden that vision so incredibly well. Commentators went on to say that this Budget has nothing—will do nothing—to unite the business sector. That is National’s Budget—nothing to unite the business sector. Regarding the KiwiSaver legislation itself the National Government has just shown us how callous it is. The logic that it uses is that the $1000 contribution is too costly an incentive. It is ignoring the tax that it took off its rich mates some time ago. It is ignoring the money that it may have saved from its welfare cuts in the 1990s. New Zealand First asked through a formal process in this House for the Government to hold off. Do not pass this legislation. Do not make it a retrospective piece of legislation. If the $1000 contribution has no effect which is the argument behind this bill then why the urgency? Why not give our children a chance? Even the meanest estimate from the Government in the last couple of days which it tried to convince New Zealanders that they will only be giving up is $25000 per person at retirement. A more reasonable estimate and I speak to the Minister who questioned my numbers—I did adjust for tax and I did use reasonable numbers—is that the lost income for our retirees is between $117000 and $145000 per person at retirement based solely on the $1000 contribution alone. That is an unbelievable loss to our future generations. With at least 500000 but many would argue a million New Zealanders still to sign up the multiplication is basic. I will leave it for the backbench members over there to do the maths themselves. New Zealand First asked this Government to consider halving the kick-start contribution to $500 dollars. The $500 seemed like a compromise. The savings even at $1000 are so minuscule as to be redundant. They truly are. But $500 we asked for. Let us be reasonable. Do not take it away so that many of our children now are missing out because of the miserly and ill-conceived processes of this Government. The debate has been far-reaching and I think quite in-depth. We have spoken about the fairness. From one morning to one afternoon we now have a disparity about entitlement about a child who applied in the morning of the Budget day to a child who applied in the evening. It just does not make sense. There is no warning. There is no fairness. It is simply a retrospective piece of legislation and I think we all know I think we have all seen that that retrospective legislation is bad basically. It often does more harm than the good that we think it will do. I did not speak about it myself but I will take this opportunity now to speak of certainty—certainty for New Zealanders in their savings. That is a key element of any successful savings fund. The members who use it the New Zealanders who wish to use it must have certainty to cut away at it eight times continuously over the years. Whether you like it or not certainty is so important for New Zealanders to have faith in a savings scheme that they can believe in and that they can use and that will supplement their retirement income into the future. This Government has taken that certainty away in so many ways with this Budget this bill just being another example of that. I ask this Government not to be so miserly. Let us not take it all away. Let us give New Zealanders some time—but no. I do not think that at any stage in this debate there was any real engagement. Certainly no one was listening as no one on that side of the House seems to be listening now. It is a presumed outcome. They are being lazy they are not engaging and they are using their majority numbers to simply pass through poor legislation under urgency with no engagement and no discussion with the people of New Zealand. No one on that side of the House has listened to logic. No one has listened to reasonable requests based around compassion. New Zealand First cannot support this bill.[Continuation line: Brett Hudson]New clause 5BSpeech - BRETT HUDSON (National)BRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of this bill in its third reading. A speaker on our side remarked earlier on today that it was almost like a parallel universe. What we see with this magnificent Budget introduced by this National-led Government is that this National-led Government is supporting those in most need with the first increases to real benefits in 43 years—43 years. In that time there have been two Labour administrations neither of which did the same thing. In this bill what it is doing instead is advocating for middle-class welfare. So we have National supporting those most in need by doing something real and Labour seeking to hand out money to people who by and large do not need it. That is a wonderful wonderful thing to see and I commend our leadership for its vision and I am fully supportive of this bill. I just wanted to respond to a couple of things that the Greens speaker had to say. Mr Shaw basically said that the primary incentive for people to be in KiwiSaver is the $1000 the Government is giving and that reason alone. That means it is not saving; it is simply Government expenditure. What we are doing is saying that instead of spending it that way we will reprioritise it to those who need it most. That is helping the people who are in the most need. That is making the best positive difference to New Zealand. The other thing Mr Shaw asked was “What then is going to incentivise saving?”. Well that is easy. It is called growing the economy creating more and higher paying jobs and what we have been seeing over the term of this Government is average wages rising faster than inflation. So if you want to help people to save Mr Shaw get in behind our Business Growth Agenda . That way you will do something positive and that will work. I commend this bill to the House.[Continuation line: Jan Logie]New clause 5BSpeech - JAN LOGIE (Green)JAN LOGIE (Green): Just to respond to the point about growing the economy and that being the way to increase savings I would like to draw the member Brett Hudson’s attention to this little graph from the Parliamentary Library . Oh facts! We have facts in the debate—goodness! It shows that in the 1980s the household savings were just around $700 per household in New Zealand. Then after this Government’s reforms in the 1990s they went down I think to a point of almost negative-$1500 while you were so busy in your paradigm growing the economy.[Continuation line: Then we have just managed to get above zero again after]JAN LOGIEThen we have just managed to get above zero again after the introduction of KiwiSaver. Although I have some issues with some of the impact on inequality of KiwiSaver the fact that it has improved average household savings is irrefutable. We have evidence from the Inland Revenue Department that tells us that the highly successful recognition for KiwiSaver is the $1000 kick-start payment—92 percent recognition. It is the most successful part of the programme. The projected increase in KiwiSaver membership is approximately 300000 over the next 4 years. There would be fiscal savings to be made from cutting that kick-start; however quoting the Inland Revenue Department from 2011: “This could damage KiwiSaver’s attractiveness to new members. There is a strong psychological boost attached with such an early initial increase in a member’s funds. On balance the potential damage to public perception and the initial attractiveness of KiwiSaver outweighs the diminishing value of fiscal savings made by reducing or removing the iconic kick-start payment.” That is the advice. But of course we do not have the advice being presented and the members on that side of the House do not have the advice because the regulatory impact statement did not ask those questions. The officials were not given the opportunity to provide that advice to the Government because this happened at the last minute to try and get closer to that ever-elusive surplus. The only questions that were actually asked and advice given to this House on the impacts of this bill were on what it would do to the Government’s bottom line because actually it just cares about the public relations exercise. That is what this is about. This is not about the current account deficit. This is not about the distribution of wealth in this country. This is not even about people’s savings or anything to do with our society and the well-being of people. This is a public relations exercise. I want to remind the members on that side of the House that if an economy is not working for everyone it is not working. What you are putting at risk is something that has helped get our households back some of them at least into savings. This country has a massive issue with income inequality and you say that you care about that and that is why you are increasing benefit rates and that is well—well—overdue. This country also has a very significant problem with wealth inequality. The top 1 percent in this country own 51.8 percent of the net wealth. That is the last time we had those figures. The bottom 20 percent have zero or little wealth and many of them are in debt. That is partially why this $1000 contribution is so critically important. It is not peripheral. This is not about the middle class because that $1000 contribution was the one thing that everyone could get even if they were on a low income and unable to contribute from out of their wages to the scheme because they wanted to ensure that their children could eat. I understand that you want to feed your kids before you put money in the savings for your retirement. I totally understand that. That is what this $1000 represents. It is the ripping away of that. That is not about a redistribution of wealth or consideration for the well-being of our society as was suggested from that side of the House. It is the exact opposite. I really do take objection to the way that this has just been pushed through under urgency.New clause 5BSpeech - JAN LOGIE (Green)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise to the member. I omitted to give her a warning bell but her time has expired.[Continuation line: Hon Ruth Dyson]New clause 5BSpeech - Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a very sad day for Parliament to be passing legislation that puts us back in terms of changing the social and financial security of older New Zealanders into the future people who are just children or young people particularly now. It has been a really bad day for the Government actually. It started off particularly bad when Todd McClay when reading his speech notes for the second reading said that he was reading it on behalf of the Minister of Finance. This legislation is so rushed that Hon Todd McClay did not even know it was in his name. I think that is a first for this Parliament. It kept going downhill after that. The Hon Gerry Brownlee suddenly had a rush of blood to the head told David Bennett that he had this rush of blood and he was taking the next call. David Bennett had a rush of blood to his face. The tension was extraordinary as Gerry Brownlee took David Bennett’s call. They could have been advised to take some of his other calls later in the debate. I think it would have helped the National Party’s credibility. In 2008 John Key made a very serious and consistent promise to the New Zealand public and that was that there would not be significant changes to the KiwiSaver scheme despite National voting against it when it was originally introduced in 2006. That broken promise is now matched by the other broken promises about no new taxes or delivering a surplus. I do not know how new National Party members feel about going out—I am sure they had every honest intention—and then turning out to have lied to people. How do they justify that? How do they say: “That’s OK. I will just go back to my electorate and forget what I said.”? People remember. I think that members of Parliament should have a conscience about what they committed to. If there is some genuine reason for them not being able to deliver a promise or heaven forbid breaking it they must have the courage of their convictions to go back to their constituency or to the people around where they live if they are a list MP and explain that to them. But I do not think one National backbencher will do that. They are just voting fodder. They are just being used as voting fodder. None of them seem to have had the courage to question or stand up to the people who made the decision. My understanding is that a very small number of Cabinet members made these decisions around this legislation and that is a very bad place for us to be. I just want to conclude by saying that helping the most vulnerable people in our society is a good thing but it does not ever need to be and it should not ever be at the cost of young savers just a couple of rungs up the ladder. That is what this KiwiSaver legislation does. That is why I am very proud to have my name on the noes side and be voting against this bill.[Continuation line: Andrew Bayly]New clause 5BSpeech - ANDREW BAYLY (National - Hunua)ANDREW BAYLY (National - Hunua): I have listened diligently and studiously to all the arguments from the Opposition and the reality is that if you go back to first principles this is a piece of legislation that is really about helping families in need. This is about delivering $790 million of assistance to the people who really need it in New Zealand. That is why I believe that this bill is an appropriate thing to do. I commend the bill to the House.[Continuation line: Chris Hipkins]New clause 5BSpeech - CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to make one final contribution in this debate and one point in my final remarks on that. That is to the members opposite who have talked about the need to target assistance to those most in need. The point that I will make to them is this: the people most likely to be in KiwiSaver now are the people who are on middle and higher incomes. They are the ones who are most likely to have already benefited from the $1000 kick-start. The people who are now most likely to miss out on the $1000 kick-start are those on lower incomes who have not already signed in. A child from a middle-class family who has been signed up is going to get a better deal than someone who is on a minimum wage now who wants to sign up tomorrow. That is wrong. That is the unfairness.[Continuation line: Alastair Scott]New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): The point that Mr Hipkins makes is absolutely right. The beneficiaries or the winners of this current policy are the middle and upper-class high-income earners. The people who we really want to help are those beneficiaries who are not participating in this scheme. That is why given a choice we prefer to dedicate a $790 million package with $25 a week for each family with children on a benefit rather than just an opportunity to take $1000 from the taxpayer to put in their bank account to accumulate over a number of years without any contribution of savings at all. That is the choice. I am pleased to stand and support this bill because it demonstrates that we on this side are fiscally responsible whereas on the other side they have given no alternative. Vis-à-vis all other things being equal where are you going to find that $500 million that we have found? There are only two choices. You either borrow it or you tax. That is what you would have to do. You would have to borrow that $500 million or you would have to increase the taxpayers of middle New Zealand and that is why I do not support your proposal. That is why I commend this bill to the House.[Continuation line: A party vote was called for]A party vote was called for on the question that the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill be read a third time.New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I request under Standing Order 144 that a personal vote be held. Our reasons in New Zealand First for doing so are twofold: one this is the most controversial piece of legislation that is being passed under urgency in the House at this time; and secondly we continue to hear reports of MPs being seen off premises whom we believe should be here.New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): No all our members are on site. Thank you very much.Hon Members: How do we know?JOANNE HAYES: Because we have evidence of that. Thank you very much.Ron Mark: Speaking to the point of order—New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I think we are in danger of getting outside a normal approach but I will hear from Ron Mark as long as it is relevant. I will warn the member that if there is a question of evidence of members being off the premises whose votes he knows have been cast the appropriate way of doing that is with the whip of the party. If there is a question of people’s votes being recorded incorrectly by a whip then the initial thing that a member should do is to raise that with the whip or the person who is casting the vote. It is just not appropriate to raise it with me.New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)RON MARK (NZ First): I understand that. I would simply request in accordance with Standing Order 144 which states: “A personal vote may be held after a party vote if a member requests one …”—and it goes on as you know—“and the Speaker considers that the decision … party vote … ”—and the rest is over to you. But it actually says that a personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one. I am so requesting.New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have been around here long enough to remember this coming up and may well have been involved in it myself. There is a ruling of Speaker Kidd which is 69/6 and it reads: “The fact that the House may on a party vote divide rather closely might well be a pattern on every vote throughout a session.”—and I think that obviously there is a possibility of that applying at the moment—“It is clearly not intended by the Standing Orders that there should be a personal vote more often than not. Closeness on a party vote is not enough of itself for a personal vote unless there is something that might make a material difference. This might arise for example out of some elements of confusion.” I would just sort of add to that that I have sat through the majority of the third reading on this bill. I have heard nothing from for example a minor party or any other member that has indicated that it was their intention to vote in any way other than the votes that have been cast by the whip. As I indicated to the member earlier if it is his understanding that members are not present who should be present that is something that should be taken up with the whips who are the persons responsible for that.New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. I fully accept the ruling that you have made and that there will not be a vote on this. I wonder whether you might take up with the Speaker when he is available and with the other presiding officers a wider issue which is that the vote system that we have at the moment certainly relies on a degree of honesty. I keep very clear records the National Party keeps very clear records and I am sure all of the parties keep very clear records of who is in the building and who is not. I have also read the Speakers’ rulings and most of those relating to personal votes pre-date MMP when votes along party lines were not as common as they are now. In fact they are now the default and the other way personal votes are very rare. I wonder whether this may be something that presiding officers would now like to consider and come back to the House on—whether there are any circumstances under which the House may consider if you like an audit of whether or not parties are in fact voting with the numbers that they should. Although it is an honesty system and members are all trusted on it there does need to be now and then some check on that. As a whip I fully accept that from time to time the Government may wish to check that I am doing what I say I am doing and we may wish to do that. There is actually very limited provision under the Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders for that to happen at the moment it would appear. That may be something that either the Speakers and the presiding officers or perhaps even the wider Standing Orders Committee may wish to consider given that now that we are well into MMP this is a new issue and has not really ever been tested.New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): With all due respect to Mr Hipkins’ view we are 20 years into MMP. There has not been a case where a whip has been proven to have misled the House—Hon Annette King: We’ve never tested it.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well I do not know what happens in the New Zealand First caucus; I have got no idea. What I can tell you is that Standing Order 144 is very specific about the role the Speaker has in determining whether or not there should be a personal vote and the points advanced by Mr Mark are not called on in the test that you have to apply.New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)JAMES SHAW (Green): Yes Mr Assistant Speaker. You referred to Speaker Kidd’s earlier ruling about some element of confusion. If Mr Mark has been hearing stories that there are MPs off campus and the Government whip is saying that they are not then that to me seems like an element of confusion.New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): James Shaw do you still want to make a comment?New clause 5BSpeech - ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No I do not think I need any more assistance. The rules in the House have been very clear and a whip’s assurances having been given are taken for people who are casting votes and that will continue to be the case. I will tell members that from my personal experience without naming the particular member I have myself on occasions gone down to a local tavern and hauled someone out whom I knew did not have leave. People are very very careful when casting votes to make sure that they are properly cast. I think we are at the point now where the Clerk is actually going to give the bill its third reading.PV on third reading—Ayes 63 Noes 56Bill read a third time.[Continuation line: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill 1R]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillFirst ReadingHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I move That the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill be now read a first time. I move that the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill be introduced to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to create an obligation on arriving and departing air and sea passengers plus crew to pay a border clearance levy. The levy will fund the costs of border processing incurred by the Ministry for Primary Industries and the New Zealand Customs Service and ensure that border services are sustainable going forward. Our border staff work incredibly hard to prevent and stop threats at our border. The success of New Zealand as a trading nation depends on making sure these risks are controlled and managed so our economy can grow and prosper. As our trade and travel links have expanded over recent years not only have the numbers of travellers entering New Zealand increased but also the diversity of those travellers has grown. Today we have more travellers arriving and departing from more locations than ever before and commercial air and cruise operators are continuing to look at opening up new routes to New Zealand. This is good news for New Zealand but it also brings with it an increased risk at our border. Border clearance activities are driven directly by the volumes of travellers arriving and departing our shores. This has been steadily increasing with international passenger numbers rising by 3.5 percent a year and this trend is set to continue and may even expand. The border clearance levy will help the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service futureproof border services as it allows the agencies to meet the demand of increasing traveller and also crew numbers. It is obvious that both agencies must be able to manage the growing risk of biosecurity incursions and harm from prohibited goods or persons and be able to put New Zealand on a sustainable platform for the future. We only have to look at recent incursions like the southern saltmarsh mosquito which cost $77 million to deal with over 12 years or didymo which cost $10 million in 2004 and the ongoing costs associated with didymo of around a million dollars a year and the Queensland fruit fly in Grey Lynn this year which is likely to cost around $17 million. This is why we have a multilayered biosecurity system that has continued to be strengthened. The Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill makes important amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. Amending these Acts means there will be a consistent approach to consultation implementation and administration of the levy. The Customs and Excise Act did not include a suitable provision to authorise a levy and the Biosecurity Act provides the ability only for a general levy-making provision. The overall effect of the bill is to impose the obligations to pay the levy and to provide that the detailed levy design be set out in levy orders after consultation. The detailed design will include for example when and how the levy is to be paid who is responsible for collecting the levy and the rate of the levy. It is likely that the cost for passengers arriving and departing New Zealand will be around $22 inclusive of GST—around $16 on arrival and up to $6 on departure—but further modelling and consultation with stakeholders and the wider public need to be completed before the final amount is decided upon. Officials are preparing a discussion document outlining the proposed options which will be released for public feedback in June this year. It is proposed that the levy will take effect from 1 January 2016 and I expect it will be added to the price of tickets purchased on or after this date. The border clearance levy is just that—a levy. It is a payment by a specific group for a specific purpose—in this case border clearance functions and activities carried out in relation to the payers of the levy. Levy funds will go into a memorandum account and will be used only to pay for Ministry for Primary Industries and Customs Service border clearance functions. The fundamental principle behind the introduction of the border clearance levy is that it is fairer that the travellers who generate the need for these border clearance services and who benefit from them contribute to the cost of these activities. Many other countries have a passenger levy in place to cover these costs. At $22 the proposed border clearance levy will be set lower than most other countries. Australia currently charges around NZ$58 and the UK’s long-haul passenger charge is almost around NZ$150. An additional charge of around $22 is unlikely to stop travellers coming to New Zealand. It is less than 1 percent of a long-haul international airfare which is a very small component of people’s overseas travel costs. Some biosecurity events could have a significant impact on tourism. In the UK during the foot and mouth disease events in 2001 the total tourism revenue dropped by almost £8 billion which if you equate that to today’s Kiwi dollars it is around $15 billion. I am proud to bring this bill into the House because I have always said that biosecurity is my No. 1 priority as Minister. The primary industries are the backbone of the New Zealand economy and we must protect them from unwanted pests and diseases. The primary sector makes up around three-quarters of our merchandise exports: it is worth around $35 billion a year. It is the hard work of our farmers growers and fishers that helps us as a Government pay for things like schools roads and hospitals. We are fortunate that our isolation has helped protect us but we must always be vigilant and prepared for new and emerging risks. The introduction of this levy and the injection of almost $27 million from Budget 2015 into biosecurity will further strengthen the overall biosecurity system. It will go towards improving import health standards more detector dogs and more x-ray machines. Also in April this year I announced Biosecurity 2025—a project to refine our biosecurity strategy out for the next 10 years. This will be looking at how we can strengthen the overall biosecurity system to make it resilient in the future from the growing pressures of trade and the increase in tourism numbers—as I have already mentioned. This bill is another important step in protecting our borders and I commend it to the House.[Continuation line: Mallard]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Rino Tirikatene: Thank you Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I am pleased to be able to—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I have not even called the member yet mainly because I am getting some noise from Mr Bennett yet again. He is on a bit of a warning. Rino TirikateneBorder Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard)RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to be speaking in the first reading of the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill . Let me state at the outset that Labour is opposing this bill—so be prepared for a long night ahead. We are opposing this bill because border processing is adequately funded from the Crown and there is no need to be imposing a travel tax on the good folks of New Zealand. Let us look at this. This is a travel tax that is going to be levied on every traveller every passenger families going on their trips and our important tourists whom we rely on coming into our country. It is a tax that will be put on everybody. For the privilege of leaving our shores folks will be paying an extra $22 for the round trip. The same applies to international visitors we want to welcome into our country: an extra tax is going to be put on them. And this is one more tax that is being put on Kiwis and it is another broken promise—another broken promise from this Government. We have seen time and time again in this Budget the broken promises in terms of the imposition of taxes and this is yet another one—taxing Kiwis ordinary Kiwis who want to go on their trip overseas. It is taxing them to be able to go over and see their loved ones. It is a broken promise. We may want to argue around the terminology. It is very clear—you might want to call it a border clearance levy; but it is still a tax. It is a tax and even John Key cannot explain the difference. When he was asked John Key said: “Oh Google it.” He did not even want to front up. He did not even want to front up. But I will tell you what. We did not need to Google; we just went to the Oxford Dictionary. And what does the Oxford Dictionary say? The definition of “levy” is a tax raised by levying.[Continuation line: So whether it is a levy or a tax]RINO TIRIKATENESo whether it is a levy or a tax “potayto” “potahto” “tomayto” “tomahto”—they are all the same. They are all the same. Soccer football—they are both the same. This is yet another broken promise from this Government the imposition of a tax a broken promise. And let us spare a thought for the New Zealand tourism industry because it is the one that has been let down by this Government with this measure. It has had a casual Minister who has just flip-flopped along trying to sort of say: “Yes this is what I’m going to do for our wonderful tourism industry.” And what has he done here? He blindsided it. He blindsided the tourism industry. It had no idea this was coming. The Prime Minister was talking to the industry just a few days ago and it was completely blindsided by this. The irony is that the Prime Minister the casual Minister of Tourism has been advocating for and working with the industry to try and encourage our major markets for international visitors to bring down or to eliminate their travel taxes. Yet now he is going against the work that has been going on from the New Zealand tourism industry in Australia and in the UK. He has done a complete about-face. And he did not even have the courtesy to give a heads-up to the New Zealand tourism industry. Let us not forget that the tourism industry is the second-largest generator of foreign exchange earnings for our country—in excess of $10.4 billion. It brings in a lot and it knows that when the Prime Minister was asked how he knows this he said that it will not make a blind bit of difference—not a blind bit of difference. How does he know that? Because just a few years ago he was trying to advocate on behalf of our industry to try and make sure that we can have freer passage to bring down those travel tax costs for our visitors. So there you go—a flip-flopping casual Prime Minister. You know there is a Twitter handle going now. The Prime Minister flip-flops so much he has been called “Jandal John”—more flip-flops than Number One Shoes. That is what John Key is: “Jandal John”. If you look up that hashtag you can see all of the flip-flops that this Prime Minister has done and there are plenty of them in this Budget. The tourism industry has been let down. The tourism industry has been incredibly let down. I want to move on. I want to move on and look at what this tax is going to be paying for. Of course we do want increased border protection bolstering our biosecurity systems. Everyone wants that. We like to see the little beagles at our airports and increased X-ray machinery. We like that. But they are already paid for by the Crown. Crown funding has paid for that. And now the Government is passing that on to everyday Kiwis and everyone who wants to go on a flight overseas. If we look behind that what else will the tax be paying for? I want to mention four letters that you rarely hear about these days out of the Ministry for Primary Industries and the New Zealand Customs Service —JBMS the Joint Border Management System. Remember that? That was the great merging of the IT platforms between the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What does it stand for?RINO TIRIKATENE: Joint Border Management System the JBMA. That is right. Remember that. What we have seen is a failure of the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service to deliver on that system. It is 3 years too late and $30 million over budget and we still probably will not have it by the end of this year which is the due date. It has been put off it has been delayed it has been costly and it has been shrouded in secrecy. That is right. This Government has been trying to put a veil of secrecy over it because there is a major dispute. There is a major dispute going on with IBM the contractor. The Government has had crisis talks after crisis talks trying to work with IBM. A hundred million dollars has been tipped into this project and we still have not seen the delivery of a first tranche or anything. Risk and intelligence—what has been delivered under the Joint Border Management System for risk and intelligence? Nothing. Risk and intelligence are totally lacking. So what will this levy be paying for? What will people be paying this tax for? We need to know what the true cost will be because what we do not want to see is that this levy is just subsidising the Budget blowout of the Joint Border Management System. That is what this tax will be doing: subsidising the cost blowouts. We know that it is not just a cost recovery. It is not a simple cost recovery exercise because there is very broad discretion to the Minister. Sure there is consultation that has to take place but at the end of the day it is a very broad discretion of the Minister to set these levies. Once the taxes have been set there is no end for what the greed of a Government and a Minister will show in terms of collecting revenue. It is a cash cow. It is an easy cash cow to pick from travellers. Rest assured the Government will be using this to subsidise the big black hole—the $30 million black hole—we already have at the moment with the Joint Border Management System. That is the real scandal of this Government that the people of New Zealand who have invested $100 million into that system—sure they have got a trade single window and people can import cargoes in terms of the freight industry but what about the core of that system? The core of that system was to modernise and have sophisticated new tools of risk and intelligence. What happens in that regard? What does the Ministry for Primary Industries and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand pull out of the Joint Border Management System? You never hear about it. It has been taken off the agenda because it is a disaster. It is an absolute disaster and this is just a cynical attempt by this Government to raise revenue to try and fill the huge black hole that has been created by that failed system. We are not going to be getting out of it. It is going to be getting worse and worse. This is a poor piece of legislation. It is another tax. We oppose it and we will oppose it all the way to midnight. Thank you.[continuation line: Nicky Wagner]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs)Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): I support this first reading of the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill simply because it will amend the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and will put in place a border clearance levy for arriving and departing passengers. I would just like to assure the member Rino Tirikatene that this money is only for cost recovery for border services and the money will be paid into a trust account ring-fenced only for border services. I would also like to point out to the member Rino Tirikatene that the Joint Border Management System is actually progressing very well that increasing numbers of exporters are using it that it has been well and truly supported by the industry and that we have just recently renewed—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise for interrupting the member but the member—[Interruption] Who was that?Hon Nathan Guy: Me.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Stand up and withdraw and apologise.Hon Nathan Guy: I withdraw and apologise.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will now indicate to Rino Tirikatene that he must not wander around the Chamber interjecting. He can interject from his seat.Hon NICKY WAGNER: I just wanted to draw to the attention of the member Rino Tirikatene that the Joint Border Management System is doing very well that it is well supported by the export industries and that we have recently signed a renewed contract with IBM because it is doing an excellent job for us.[continuation line: Let me get back to the levy]Hon NICKY WAGNERLet me get back to the levy though. It is what this bill is all about. The levy will fund the costs of border processing—only border processing—incurred by the Ministry of Primary Industries and the New Zealand Customs Service. It will ensure that border services are sustainable. I think if we reflect that over the recent months many of the Opposition members have been talking about increased security at our border and have been talking about increase biosecurity at our border I expect that members of the Opposition will be supporting this bill because this will make our border safer. As the Minister for Primary Industries has just said our success as a trading nation is about making sure that the risks at our borders are controlled and managed so that our economy can grow and prosper. As our travel and trade links expand and travellers entering New Zealand become more numerous and more diverse with them they bring increased risks. More passengers arriving and departing New Zealand from more locations means more risk—more risk to our security and to our biosecurity. The interesting thing here of course is that higher-risk passengers require higher levels of intervention which increases passenger clearing costs. If we cannot manage that growing risk the frequency of biosecurity incursions and harm from prohibited goods and persons will increase. New Zealanders do not want that. Demand for the Ministry of Primary Industries and customs border clearance activities has been steadily increasing over recent years. International passenger numbers have been rising at about 3.5 percent every year and forecasts are for even more than that. It is an increasing upward trend. What is more the numbers of people who are coming through our borders are increasingly international people. Whereas in the past large numbers of people coming through were New Zealanders now just over 40 percent of people coming through our borders are New Zealanders. The vast majority are international passengers. About 95 percent of the travellers cleared at the border are crew and passengers from commercial airlines. About 4 percent are crew and passengers from passenger ships—cruise liners and they are increasing—and the remaining 1 percent are from private aircrafts yacht cargo ships or the military. Up until now the New Zealand taxpayer has been covering the costs of all these services even though many of those travellers are not New Zealanders. In fact as I have just said significantly more are international travellers and many of them are coming on luxury cruises and on pleasure trips. It does not seem right to me that every New Zealander—man woman and child—is paying $23 whether they cross the border or not. That is a tax whereas this is a levy that the people requiring the use of the services and the people bringing the risk will be paying. The levy will be funded to maintain existing service levels and the current high level of risk management. Many other countries have a passenger levy. They have got it; it is international best practice now to do that. In our case ours will be about $20 give or take and it is really on the low side. What we are seeing is that overseas countries have much more. Australia has A$55 or NZ$58. The UK’s long-haul fee is £71 about NZ$150 and Canada and the US are similar. So this Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill makes important amendments as we have said to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. The reason we have to do that is that the Customs and Excise Act does not currently have a suitable provision to authorise a levy and the Biosecurity Act only provides for general level-making provision. Amending these Acts will make sure that we get a consistent approach to consultation implementation and administration of the levy.Carmel Sepuloni: Consultation?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Implementation and administration of the levy. The Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill also includes provisions that allow Orders in Council to be made for the levy’s administration including the rate of the levy the basis on which it is set and how the levy is to be paid. The levy will take effect on 1 January 2016 and it will be applied to tickets purchased on or after that date. It is proposed that the border clearance levy will be set at different rates for arriving and departing passengers. That reflects the differences in clearance costs because I remind you this only recovers the clearing costs and what happens at the border. So this will reflect the differences in clearing costs between people arriving and people departing. The total costs for passengers arriving and departing will be about $20 inclusive of GST—about $16 on arrival and up to about $6 on departure but this will be teased out during the consultation phase. The cost of processing arriving passengers is higher because there is no biosecurity screening at departure and the level of customs resources and intervention at departure is less. Stakeholders and the general public will get a chance to have their say about this levy about its design and about its implementation and the details will be consulted on. Officials are already preparing a discussion document which will outline proposed options and that will be released for public feedback in June. The intention is to make the border clearance levy simple and easy to collect. It is proposed that the existing payment systems are used to collect the levy. The airlines will make a monthly lump-sum payment to the Civil Aviation Authority and cruise ship operators will pay the Customs Service. The funds will then be allocated to the Customs Service by the Ministry of Primary Industries. For other travellers such as people on private yachts and airlines the levy will be collected from them directly as they enter and depart New Zealand. The border clearance levy is less than 1 percent of the international airfare so it is a very small component to people’s overall travel costs. The additional charge of about $20 is very unlikely to have any bearing on the traveller’s choice of destination. The people of New Zealand told us that they want a safe and secure border. This bill will protect New Zealanders and will protect our environment. I commend the bill to the House.[Continuation line: Annette King]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour)Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): This debate is about the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. The first question I would ask this House is: when is a levy a tax? When is a tax a levy? And when is a tax not a tax? Well we found out today that we know when it is and when it is not: it is when the Prime Minister says so. That is when it is a tax and when it is a levy. [Interruption] For the member opposite sitting at the back who immediately interjected a tax is raised by a levy. This is a levy and it goes to a tax. This is a tax. Make no bones about it—this is a tax. For the listening public and the people in the gallery tonight here late in the day on this Saturday afternoon this Government is forcing through under urgency a new tax on New Zealanders. This debate is all about a brand new tax—never mentioned never canvassed. I have to say the old saying of no taxation without some representation—no representations were made to the Government to bring in this new tax. It is just a very sneaky little manoeuvre passed under urgency. That is why we will oppose it. We will oppose it because it was not a tax that was ever canvassed with the public of New Zealand. Did the National Party go to the election and say: “We are going to raise a new tax. We are going to put it on travellers arriving and departing—on New Zealanders and on foreigners.”? No it did not. This is a very sneaky sneaky little tax. I have to say I am particularly disappointed in the Minister of Tourism who happens to be the Prime Minister because he was at a tourism conference 2 or 3 days ago. Did he their Minister mention that he was going to bring in a tax on their industry? Their own Minister goes and speaks at a conference. “Jokey John” was there.Kelvin Davis: “Jandal John”.Hon ANNETTE KING: It was “Jandal John”. He was there. He was there with the jokes and the smiles and the laugh. Did he tell them that he was going to bring in a sneaky little tax and pass it under urgency on a Saturday afternoon?[Continuation line: No he did not. He did not raise it. He never gave any indication at all]Hon ANNETTE KINGNo he did not. He did not raise it and he never gave any—any—indication at all to a very very important constituency. The Nats want this debate out of the way as fast as possible because they know—they know. They came to us and they wanted us to agree with it and to get it out of the way as fast as possible for one reason: they are embarrassed. They are embarrassed because they are bringing in a new tax and it is being brought in by a Prime Minister who can perform gymnastics with the truth. He can do the double backflips on anything he likes and we have got plenty of examples. “No new taxes.” he said so he raised GST. “No new taxes.” so here tonight at 5.10 p.m. he sneaks in a border tax on New Zealanders and on foreigners. He breaks his promises like he breaks his eggs into the pan in the morning. He could not even deliver on the promise to give New Zealand a panda. That is how many promises he breaks. Yesterday Mr Key was asked what the difference was between a tax and a levy. When asked the difference between a tax and a levy the Prime Minister’s answer was: “Many”. When he was asked again he said: “Google it.” Then when asked a third time he said that he could answer it but said: “… but I’m not going to bother.” “I’m not going to bother.” and that is a quote. The Prime Minister could not be bothered telling New Zealanders what this was all about whether it was a tax or a levy or why we were having it. He just could not be bothered. I have to say that having claimed that many times—like one of those biblical characters who did it three times—he said it was for biosecurity. He finally said it was for biosecurity. [Interruption] That was Judas if you wanted to know. The Prime Minister said it was for biosecurity. Well let us look at the Government’s record on biosecurity and at the hopeless hapless Minister it has got who is the Minister for biosecurity. He has been hopeless in this position. He has let more insects and bugs into this country and put more things under threat than any other Minister in the history of this country. He cut the staff and he cut the funding and now he wants to replace it by putting a levy on New Zealanders. What a sham. If it was really about biosecurity Mr Minister why not increase the levy on the ports and on containers? That is where you find most of your biosecurity risk not the odd person who might inadvertently have an apple in their bag—in fact most of them are caught because they go past one of the sniffer dogs. It is in your containers and over your ports so why not increase that levy? Oh no there is no answer to that. This bill is a sneaky attempt to grab money from hard-working Kiwis who want a holiday. In its own documents the Government says the most hard hit will be those going on short-term trips across the Tasman. For New Zealanders probably the only trip that they can really afford is going across to Australia and so they are the ones who are going to be mainly hit. What has been the reaction once they found out that this sneaky little tax was going to be introduced into this House? Air New Zealand said it was very surprised. It said that it will add to the cost of the ticket. Then it asked a very good question—and I hope that the Minister can answer this question—if it is really about biosecurity it asked what biosecurity or customs risk do New Zealanders who are leaving New Zealand pose? What is the biosecurity or customs risk that New Zealanders who are leaving pose?Hon Nathan Guy: That’s the immigration process.Hon ANNETTE KING: No. The big argument Minister is that it is for biosecurity. Your Minister Nicky Wagner who just sat down—she talked all about biosecurity. So tell me what is the risk in someone taking their bag and going to another country? What is the cost of a departure because this is imposed not only on people coming into New Zealand but also on departure? The airline industry which probably knows a little bit about people coming and going actually asked that question Minister. I hope tonight when you get into that chair—Hon Nathan Guy: I’ve answered it.Hon ANNETTE KING: Well you can sit in the chair and answer it properly instead of just yelling across the House. The airline industry wants to know why it is going to be charged on people leaving New Zealand. Let us see what the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand said. It said that the tax was “in breach of an understanding reached between the Government airlines and the tourism industry in 2003”. Did the members opposite know that there was such an understanding—that there was an understanding that has been in place since 2003. It was honoured for all the 5 years of a Labour Government but broken like its promises by this Government. It breached an understanding which means that its word is worth nothing—it is worth nothing—when an understanding is made. The Government announced this; it did not consult on it. It did not say: “We’re going to do this.” National has brought it in and it has breached an understanding between the Government the airlines and the tourism industry. You cannot trust those members. The airline representatives also said they were “disappointed that the Government itself would harm the tourism industry.” That is what it they said. They are surprised that the Government itself would harm their industry—a $10.4 billion industry.[Continuation line: Tourism New Zealand—what did it say?]Hon ANNETTE KINGTourism New Zealand —what did it say? It said that taxes imposed in other countries had had an adverse effect on travel. Now let me go to the final point that I want to make. In December 2011 the British Government announced an increase in departure tax for air travellers to New Zealand. The Prime Minister went to Britain. He “slammed the decision” saying it would place “a significant burden on New Zealand businesses on families who travel”. He said that it was a “tax” and he said it was “discrimination on the basis of distance”. That was said by the Prime Minister in 2011. He opposed this passenger tax in Britain. He flew there at the taxpayer’s expense—he flew there at the taxpayer’s expense.Hon Nathan Guy: It’s $150.Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not care how much it is Mr Minister. It is the principle—the principle. The principle—it is a tax and our Prime Minister flew to Britain to oppose it. He flew there to oppose it. He got headlines in the media. He got on the front of the television news because he said it was discrimination. Well I will tell you Mr Minister what it is. It is double standards and it is what we expect from National. Those members make promises that they break on a daily basis. They say: “No new taxes.” and they put in new taxes—the biggest one of course being increased GST  which hurts the people who have the least in this country. Then tonight they are sneaking in a tax that they never consulted on. They have no right to bring it in without such representation. We oppose it.[Continuation line: Ian McKelvie]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well Annette King the last speaker certainly showed up her leader. She got more words out in 10 minutes than he got out in 20. Unfortunately that speech was about as factual as his speech was the day before yesterday. I just need to point out a few facts in the process of supporting the two Ministers who have spoken before me on the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures Levy) Bill. For a start a levy is a levy a rate is a rate and a tax is a tax and clearly the Labour Party has not worked that out. Secondly the Government is charged with running the country. The Labour Party has clearly forgotten that it had a turn at doing that a while ago and did not do much of a job of it. The issue we have got here is that we have a large number of people coming into this country demanding a service of this country and creating a threat to this country in that we need to protect our border at all costs. We now have some 5.2 million people coming here annually. Well over 55 to 60 percent of those people are foreign visitors coming to this country. We have seen from the fruit fly just very recently in Auckland that there is significant risk to New Zealand. I just want to make a couple of other points before I finish. Firstly the taxpayers of New Zealand have been paying for this service for a long time. The average taxpayer in my electorate never leaves this country. The interesting thing about this is that most of the people who use this service are people who can afford to pay for this service and consequently I think there is a very fair way of allocating a levy or a charge to achieve a result for this country that will be much better than what we have seen before.[Continuation line: It gives us some security it gives us a permanency]IAN McKELVIEIt gives us some security it gives us a permanency of payment and it alleviates the need for a large number of New Zealand taxpayers who never use or have an interest in this service to contribute to it. One other point I want to make in this debate is that this country is significantly tested around infrastructure by the large number of visitors we have to this country. I think it has been pointed that some 5.2 million people came to the country last year. In my electorate I have a couple of little towns Sanson and Bulls. Some 14000 vehicles a day go through those towns. Those local ratepayers or taxpayers have to pay every bit of that bill. I think this is just another case of exactly that sort of thing going on. I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting this bill. Thank you.[Continuation line: TISCH: I call James Shaw. Before the member starts]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call James Shaw. Before the member starts with the barracking across the cross benches it is very difficult to hear. Give courtesy to James Shaw.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)JAMES SHAW (Green): We seem to be starting this bill where we left off with the Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill with some rather cunning linguistics. When is a tax a tax? When is it a levy? When is a levy a tax? When is it a rate? What is in a name? That which we know as a rose would by any other name smell as sweet. That is where we started yesterday with the telecommunications legislation. Was it a tax? Was it a levy? Actually who cares? Who cares what the language of it is. It is revenue that the Government needs to charge to cover its costs. The Green Party has never been particularly afraid of this notion. When the Government wanted to reduce and did reduce the top income tax rate and reduced the Government’s revenue by about a billion dollars a year which has led to record deficits and an inability to cover its expenses we argued against that. It is OK. Sometimes you have to raise taxes in order to cover your costs and the Government is doing that. It likes to pretend that it is not by calling it something that it is not. But actually we know it for what it is. We commend the Government for raising the revenue that it needs to raise in order to cover the costs of running the country. That is completely fine. Bill English has raised or extended any number of taxes. The Government has raised GST it has raised the petrol tax it has removed the paper boy levy and it has put a tax I think on private jets. Yesterday we extended an existing tax which is the telecommunications development tax ah levy ah rate. [Interruption] I am sorry. I am just pulling your ponytail. Whether it is a matter of double standards or broken promises that is OK. It is a National Government. We expect that. Let us talk about the substance of what this is about which is to raise revenue to cover the costs of biosecurity and customs. The purpose of this bill is to introduce international passenger levies which will be used to fund the costs of biosecurity and border control relating to imported pests diseases illegal drugs and contraband. The measure is expected to raise about $100 million a year. These are costs relating only to international passengers not to goods and freight which are already covered by other border levies taxes and rates. The Green Party is supporting this bill. We think that it makes sense for a number of different reasons. First of all it takes a cost of the industry essentially of the tourism industry that has previously been externalised to the New Zealand taxpayer and it internalises that cost back into the industry. That cost has been borne by the public at large through general taxation previously. The benefit of course comes back to the economy through international tourism and so on but this is a much more direct and transparent way of making that cost apparent. Also given that a significant number of the people who will be charged this tax levy and rate are foreign tourists to New Zealand we are managing to raise additional revenue from people who are visiting this country as opposed to the New Zealand taxpayers. Secondly we have and I have criticised the Government for a habit of corporate welfarism in the past which is to use general taxation to hand out to industry players in general. Both with the telecommunications development levy and this one this is a much more direct and accountable way of raising these revenues and internalising those costs that are otherwise externalised. So we think it actually increases transparency and accountability to do it this way. Another reason why we are supporting it is that it ties revenue to actual numbers and actual costs. So as passenger numbers increase or decrease the amount of revenue will track directly to that and therefore costs will expand and contract based on actual passenger numbers whereas there is some inefficiency if you do it just from general taxation. The costs are borne by travellers in this case like I said many of whom are international guests to the country and all of whom are generally people who can absorb this cost. As one of the Ministers who spoke previously to the bill said this will account for less than 1 percent of the total cost. If you are paying $1000 to come and visit New Zealand another $36 on top is not actually going to make that much difference. Most other countries have airport taxes in place. I lived in the United Kingdom for most of my career most of my adult life and the airport taxes there—to go in and out of Heathrow will cost you something in the order of NZ$142 and in Australia it is about $58. So our $36 in and out charge is actually pretty reasonable. The Green Party has in the past called for the use of airport taxes to fund the Department of Conservation estate. Given that the vast majority of international travellers to New Zealand are people who are coming to look at the conservation estate and to take advantage of it that would be a direct way of helping to fund the costs of the tourism industry in the conservation estate. Also the costs of promoting essentially the conservation estate are borne in large part by a number of local authorities. There is some room to expand this in the future. Given that the levy that has been suggested here of around $36 is a pretty low rate there does seem to be some room in the future to bring that up to the median rate of airport taxes around the world which could be used for those other purposes as well. So it sets a precedent to create some other opportunities in the future. I understand that the industry has a number of concerns and again because we are in urgency we are unable to have those voices represented either for or against the bill through the select committee process. That is unfortunate as with all urgency bills. Horticulture New Zealand has said it is for this because obviously it is deeply concerned about biosecurity incursions. Because biosecurity costs were cut some years ago by this Government there have been an increasing number of incursions the costs to the economy of which are really substantial. So what this bill does is it restores some of the funding that was previously cut and I can understand why Horticulture New Zealand would be keen on strengthening our biosecurity. Air New Zealand Auckland Airports and Airports New Zealand are obviously not in favour of this and I can understand why. They have got some concerns that it will affect our international competitiveness. It would be great if this was not an urgency debate and if we did have a select committee process where we could hear some evidence for and against that. I understand the industry concerns there. There are passengers who are price sensitive. My gut feeling is that a tax of less than 1 percent of the cost of travel is something that passengers can cope with and that it will not significantly affect our international competitiveness. Flight Centre has come out and said that it is pretty ambivalent about it. Its concern would be if the people who are being charged were not getting the benefit of this. It has some concerns as well. I just wanted to represent the absence of the select committee process. Having said all of that we do have a couple of concerns one of which is that the cost of this is both biosecurity and customs and some of it is revenue. It is $100 million of revenue estimated. Some of this revenue is going to go to upgrade our border security and customs including new technology X-ray machines and so on. We have some caution around the use of this money for new technologies that may invade personal privacy and we would like to hear from the Government side where that money is going and what kinds of new technologies it is looking at expanding that into. The upside is that I understand they are bringing back beagles. Everyone loves a beagle. We are going to see some puppies back at Auckland Airport which is great. Also there are some concerns about the extent to which the biosecurity money is simply topping up what was previously cut as opposed to actually extending the biosecurity regime as well.[Continuation line: So we just want to hear a bit more of that sort of information.]JAMES SHAWSo we just want to hear a bit more of that sort of information. Having said that we do not like the fact that this bill is going through under urgency. We cannot see why it is an urgency bill. There does not seem to be anything particularly urgent about it but then there has not been anything particularly urgent about any of the bills that have come through over the last few days. We are not happy about that. We do have some concerns about privacy and about the use of the money for biosecurity. We do want the voice of industry to be represented if it has concerns it does not feel have been adequately represented. But for all of the other reasons I stated we will be supporting this bill in the House. Thank you.[continuation line: Richard Prosser]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the first reading debate on the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. This is a bill that New Zealand First would very much like to be able to support. At the moment we cannot support it because we have some questions and some concerns that are yet to be addressed and answered. I certainly hope that as the bill passes through the stages of urgency a Minister or Ministers or Government members take the opportunity to address these concerns and give us some answers. I notice that the Minister of Customs has already filled in a couple of details which I was not previously aware of so that helps to fill in the gaps. Yesterday the Rt Hon Winston Peters referred to this bill as the “Holiday Tax Bill” and that is one of our primary concerns. We are very concerned that in fact this may be nothing other than a holiday tax bill and I would like the Minister or someone else to reassure us that it is not. New Zealand First has called long and loud and often for better resourcing for biosecurity. We understand just how vitally important biosecurity is for the primary sector. We know full well how important the primary sector is to the entire economy and to our way of life. There is an awful lot riding on it and for that reason we have often and loudly called for better resourcing for biosecurity. If indeed this bill does constitute better resourcing if it does mean more money if it will mean more boots on the ground if it will mean more sniffer dogs and more X-ray machines then we will support those things which are good things wholeheartedly. I am a little bit concerned that Minister Wagner talked about cost recovery. That sort of raises a bit of a flag for me that perhaps this is not additional money; perhaps it is just shifting the revenue stream from one source to another. That is one of our concerns. If the Ministers can demonstrate how this levy is the best way to achieve an increase in resourcing for biosecurity and do so convincingly then we will be supportive of that as a move. But at the moment we do not because as I said there are still too many questions unanswered. There is too little in the way of detail and explanation in the bill itself and in the Government’s supporting material—its publicity material. There are some elements of that which are kind of ambiguous. There is material in the departmental disclosure statement for example that seems to be at odds with some of the Government’s publicity material and it would give us great confidence if the Government is prepared to address these matters as we go through the stages and hopefully persuade us that our concerns are not founded. I say that because if they do not then there is actually no other way in which this bill is able to be examined or explained. This bill like the others we have been debating since the Budget is being pushed through under urgency so there is no select committee process. There is no opportunity for the public to make submissions and no opportunity for industry for the primary sector to make submissions and no opportunity for anybody who is going to be affected to ask questions and make input. That is the nature of urgency. When we move into urgency and pass legislation under urgency what we are essentially doing is suspending the normal constitutional processes of this House and of the country. It is not something that we believe should be done lightly or indeed often. But it does seem—certainly in the short number of years I have been in this House—to be becoming something that this Government is tending to do more and more often. Also it seems to me anyway that there is less and less in the way of justification. The day before yesterday when the Leader of the House was advising us why this bill would go through under urgency he said “The Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill is being introduced because demand for border clearance services is increasing due to the number of airline and cruise ship passengers—”Grant Robertson: What? Over the weekend?RICHARD PROSSER: —“arriving and departing from New Zealand.” Yes! “This is expected to grow by some 3.5 percent annually for the foreseeable future and we simply need to have the users of the services that we provide to protect our borders paying for them. This bill requires Customs and Excise Act changes and Biosecurity Act changes because they do not currently provide the facility to collect that levy. Urgency is necessary to allow for a period of consultation on the design—meaning the design of the levy—post the passing of the bill which is the process that needs to be used.” Thank you—according to Mr Brownlee urgency is needed because this is the process that needs to be used. So it is just because. Well just because is hardly an explanation for why the nation’s normal constitutional procedures are being sidelined. This is really a case of the Government saying to the Parliament “Just sign this blank cheque and we’ll fill in the details later. Trust us. You don’t need to know.” So we have to ask why and we would really like some explanation and some clarification around that. This is only a levy-setting bill—or a tax bill or a bill that authorises a fee or a rate; some money being paid. All it is is a bill that authorises a levy. We are not going to war. We are not declaring a republic. We are not changing the flag. I promise you we are not changing the flag—believe you me that ain’t happening—and we are not responding to some sort of natural disaster. We are applying a fee to passengers arriving and passengers departing and that is all. I fail to see how anything to do with setting a fee can be so crucial that we have to rush it through under urgency and dispense with normal procedure. But we will of course. The bill will go through with our support or not because the Government has the numbers. The ACT Party—all of him—will happily bend over in any direction the Government wants because he does not want to bite the hand that feeds him and United Future will also be compliant. That is just the way he has become. I recall a politician a member of this House from long ago who used to refuse to support any legislation that was going through under urgency on principle. That man was Peter Dunne. I wonder what ever became of him. So this bill will go through and we will have the opportunity to ask the Minister and the Government and some questions about it. We will seek to have a number of matters clarified and if our concerns can be satisfied then I say to the Ministers that we are capable of having our minds changed by way of sound reasoning and we may well yet consider giving our support to the bill. Thank you.[continuation line Stuart Smith]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura)STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): In response to the previous member’s questions around cost 55 percent of the visitors who come to New Zealand are visitors from offshore and therefore the tax or the—[Interruption] It is not a tax; it is a levy and the levy will cover the cost and take the load off our taxpayers as it should. So I commend the bill to the House.[continuation line: Tisch. I understand this is a split call.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that this is a split call.Iain Lees-Galloway: I understand that too Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): OK. Iain Lees-Galloway—5 minutes.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Finally we have confirmation from the member Stuart Smith that this is indeed a new tax. It is appropriate—Hon Member: One honest National Party member.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes we have found the honest National MP—he will not go far. We have sat through this Budget legislation over the last 3 days and many of us have been in the House for a lot of that time. The culmination of the legislation that has been passed through this House demonstrates to New Zealand that this is a Budget of broken promises and sneaky taxes. It is so appropriate that this bill is the finale because this is a bill that passes not only a broken promise but also a sneaky tax. You may be wondering how it does that in light of National’s promise at the last election. The sign I am holding says: “No new taxes” Read my lips—no new taxes. That is what the National Party members promised to the people of New Zealand at the last election. Yet that is exactly what they have done. They have brought legislation to this House in this Budget and introduced a bevy of sneaky little taxes because they cannot find a way into surplus. I will give them points for sincerity though because it says at the top here: “A strong economy means” and then “no new taxes”. So far enough—they cannot build a strong economy. They have not got the faintest idea how to build a strong economy so that is why we have ended up with a bevy of sneaky little taxes and broken promise.[continuation line: This legislation is all about broken promises and sneaky taxes]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAYThis legislation is all about broken promises and sneaky taxes. I am very concerned about the inflation rate on this tax. When Nicky Wagner and Nathan Guy announced it just a couple of days ago it was going to be around $16 for people coming into the country and $6 to leave—Hon Nicky Wagner: No no.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Do not disagree with me Nicky Wagner because it came from your press release. If you think I am wrong check with the communications team to make sure that your messages are getting through. So she said it would be about $16; today it is $20 or thereabouts. Nicky Wagner is looking confused. Read the Hansard of your own speech Nicky Wagner because this is what you said. It is already $20. That is a 25 percent increase in just a couple of days. This tax is going up faster than Auckland house prices and that is a scary thought. But hey maybe it is not a tax. Maybe Stuart Smith was wrong—no he was not. He is right. He is right it is a tax. But if we just accept for a second National’s line that it is actually a levy that does not instil an awful lot of confidence because we know what it does with levies. What does it do with the ACC levies? It keeps them artificially high so that it can try to get the books back into surplus. So maybe the fact that it has gone from $16 2 days ago to $20 today to goodness knows what when it is actually implemented is actually about the Government’s plan to build up and overcharge on yet another levy so that it can try to get the books into surplus. We know what this is. It is a departure tax. I want to advise the Government members that we used to have a departure tax at Palmerston North Airport and the people hated it. The people absolutely hated it. They are going to hate this and they are going to see right through it. They are going to know what this is. This is just another broken promise and another sneaky tax from this sneaky National Government.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Steffan Browning—5 minutes.[Continuation line: Steffan Browning]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - STEFFAN BROWNING (Green)STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): We will be supporting this bill. We see that this sort of user-pays method to fund some aspects of biosecurity and customs processing is appropriate. But this levy is no magic bullet.Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s a tax.STEFFAN BROWNING: It is a levy it is a tax it is a whatever—it is a source of income for these processes at the border. It is just a fraction of what is needed for biosecurity. We will be speaking obviously at another time on the total budget for biosecurity. The Government has only added—supposedly added—about $25 million to biosecurity and that is a very very concerning thing. This is just another revenue source. The $100 million that is anticipated in 2017-18 is only a source to basically cover the limited amount that is being used already out of other revenue streams. Biosecurity at the border needs a lot lot more money. I have put it to the Minister for Primary Industries that even if you used 50 percent of what you are going to get from this new income stream and added it to existing biosecurity money it will still not be enough for biosecurity. Think of fruit fly. How did it get in this last time? Previously up in Whangarei we thought it was probably a yacht and then another time another yacht possibly. Are these people going to get taxed? Is someone going to be tapping them on the shoulder to pay their levy? I hope so.Hon Nicky Wagner: Yes they are. They are as they come in. As they clear customs.STEFFAN BROWNING: Yes so is customs going to be there for these stray yachts—waifs and strays—as they come in to inspect them properly and to gather their tax? I hope so because they need to be paying their part of it. Then we had the Auckland incursions the more recent ones. What has that cost so far? And it is not over yet. We have to wait until spring to see if there is a re-emergence because it was not nipped in the bud quick enough—worse these Queensland fruit flies actually got in here and were able to sit in New Zealand and breed for at least one generation and by the look of it more than one generation of breeding in New Zealand because we did not nip it in the bud. Is this levy/tax going to do the job? No it is not. It is just going to make sure that some of those people who could have been responsible are going to be paying their way. Back in the mid 1990s even when HortResearch looked at the potential cost of Mediterranean fruit fly—a good proxy for Queensland fruit fly—the cost for the Bay of Plenty should it get going there was $820 million and a cost basically of 3500 jobs. In the Hawke’s Bay it was $390 million with over 3000 jobs lost and in the Nelson area $265 million with close to 2000 jobs lost. It is critical that we do biosecurity to the nth degree and do way way better than we are doing at the moment. I would like to actually pat the Minister Nathan Guy on the back. I have been watching biosecurity very closely well before I was in Parliament and right through to this time. Unfortunately in 2008 when National got in there were significant cuts to biosecurity in this country. There was an immediate loss of almost 60 jobs and I think a year or so later there were another 200 jobs down the gurgler in biosecurity. Importantly many of these were in the front line. What we have been seeing is an incremental increase and repair to that. I will speak further on this in a later speech. Thank you.[Continuation line: Todd Barclay]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland)TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I support this bill.[Continuation line: David Shearer]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert)DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): That was an excellent speech—an excellent speech. This is a tax. We know it is a tax. They might pronounce it “levy” but it is spelt t-a-x—tax. That is what it is. That is what the Oxford Dictionary says it is. That is what it really is. Why do they not just front up and admit it? The reason they do not want to front up and admit is that at the last election they promised not to put up taxes. They also promised to get us back into surplus. The whole murky tangle of web is all around this. This is about trying to narrow down the deficit by putting through these sneak taxes cutting our KiwiSaver kick-start. Those are the issues that we see so transparently that they are doing in order to get us back into surplus. They said no new taxes; this is a tax. Why is it that we are sitting here on Saturday night putting through a bill under urgency when there is nothing on the Order Paper. The Order Paper is empty. In a few weeks’ time Gerry Brownlee will stand up at the beginning of Parliament and say there is nothing to do today because there actually is not very much to do. Why are we sitting here under urgency? The only reason is that we do not want to give New Zealanders the opportunity to sit down and debate this. Why would they want to be coming in front of a select committee? Because they would point out to the Government in front of the media day after day after day that this is a tax. It is not a levy; it is a tax. There is no secret as to why this Government needs to lift its game when it comes to biosecurity—not if you live in the Mt Albert electorate that I live in. It is currently infested with Queensland fruit fly. Maybe some of the money that they raise can be used to compensate the fruit growers and the shopkeepers in my electorate because they have suffered by most calculations of the supermarkets there 50 percent in terms of lost revenue from the sale of fruit and vegetables. They have been infested because this Government has taken its eye off biosecurity. There is nothing more important to the economy of this country than biosecurity. Steffan Browning said it before and I totally agree with him—he got his numbers a little wrong. It was 91 front-line staff who were cut in 2009—91.[Continuation line: We stopped X-raying]DAVID SHEARERWe stopped X-raying a lot of bags. We cut back on the number of dogs that were checking baggage coming into our airports. And the result is that we have had two outbreaks of Queensland fruit fly  and one of them is still alive and active. That is a desperate and wanting policy and that is why this Government has to step up and really put some money behind it. But that is not the end of the problem—that is not the end of the problem. The other part of it which my colleague Rino Tirikatene pointed out is the JBMS. That is a shocker. The JBMS is the Joint Border Management System . It was supposed to revolutionise everything coming into New Zealand. Well it has failed. In 2010 it was on the books costing $75 million. In 2013 it had jumped to $90 million. In 2014 it was up to $104 million and it is still not doing what IBM  which is the main contractor said it was going to be able to do. I would like to ask Nikki Wagner  when she has a chance later on in the Committee stages to stand up and say: “No we are definitely not taking IBM to court.” We are not taking IBM to court—because there is a very big rumour around town that IBM is under the gun and is going to be taken to court. This smells and tastes like Novopay  and that is another reason why this Government has to bring out another tax—another tax—to try and cover the books. This is a disgrace. The biosecurity has let in more pests in the last 2 years than any other time in our history and the Joint Border Management System and the customs system is falling over and costing this country millions. This is a tax—a tax—a tax and let us not forget it. Thank you.[Continuation line: Barbara Kuriger]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country)BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I am in favour of this bill. Thank you.[PV on first reading—Ayes 73 Noes 40][Continuation line: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill 2R Nathan Guy]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSecond ReadingHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I move that the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Act be now read a second time.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is a levy bill not an Act .Hon NATHAN GUY: I move That the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill be now read a second time. As I outlined to the House earlier this levy will fund the cost of border processing incurred by the Ministry for Primary Industries and the New Zealand Customs Service  and ensure that border services are sustainable. The Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service together spend around $100 million a year on border clearance for passengers and crew. In the past these costs have been met by taxpayers. It is worth noting that around 55 percent of arriving and departing passengers come from overseas and therefore do not contribute directly to the cost of our border services. The Government considers it is fairer for these costs to fall on passengers traveling internationally. Our borders are dealing with increasing volumes. Arriving air-passenger volumes have grown by more than 18 percent from $4.4 million in 2009 to $5.2 million in 2014 and are expected to continue to increase by around 3.5 percent per year. The levy will help ensure our border processes stay fit for purpose into the future. It is likely that the total cost for all passengers arriving and departing New Zealand will be around $22 inclusive of GST  but further modelling—[Interruption]—in consultation with stakeholders if the members opposite listen and with the New Zealand public needs to be completed before the total amount is confirmed. Officials are preparing a discussion document outlining the proposed options which will be released for public feedback in June. The levy is proposed to take effect on 1 January 2016 and will be applied to tickets purchased on or after that date. Around 95 percent of travellers cleared at the border arrive on commercial airlines. About 4 percent come from cruise chips and the remaining 1 percent come from private aircraft yachts cargo ships etc. This announcement is part of a range of measures in Budget 2015 to improve security and services at the border involving immigration customs and biosecurity. The Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service have already been closely working together to make improvements at the border sharing their facilities cross-warranting of staff enhanced profiling targeting of incoming passengers and the use of automated systems such as SmartGate . The introduction of the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Act will put border services on a sustainable footing by allowing funding to increase as passengers rise which is fairer and it will be more responsive to managing the risks at the border as well as providing quality services. I commend this bill to the House.[Continuation line: Rino Tirikatene]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga)RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to speak at the second reading of this bill. Ordinarily a second reading takes place after the bill has been referred to select committee  has received public submissions and viewpoints from the industry and from all-around affected persons. That is the path that this bill should be taking but unfortunately here we are on Saturday approaching 6 o’clock  and we are now into the second reading of a bill that this Government has admitted is a tax. I would like to acknowledge Mr Smith for telling the truth and acknowledging that this levy is a tax. So thank you Mr Smith for that. I am sure you will progress really well amongst your team. Good luck to you. This is a tax and unfortunately it is a slap in the face for New Zealand’s tourism industry. The second-largest foreign-exchange earner for our country: over $10 billion in earnings is generated by the tourism industry. What were they told about this? What were they told about this—absolutely nothing. And who is their Minister ? That is right “General John”—“General John” flip-flopping all the time. Just a couple of years ago he was trying to advocate to bring down these taxes so we can actually have open transfer and facilitation of tourism travel. But no what has he done? He has absolutely thumbed his nose at the industry and absolutely gone contrary to all of the work that they have been doing. It has been outlined in the 2025 strategy of the New Zealand tourism industry. A lot of work has been going on in terms of promoting freer flow of tourists and what we are seeing is the opposite: this bill has actually been doing the opposite. It is just an attempt by this Government to collect more revenue by targeting travellers ordinary Kiwis  ordinary folks and all of our international visitors who want to make a trip to New Zealand. But there is a cost to this because there is the assumption that yes we have got a free flow of visitors but if you look at the trans-Tasman market for tourists there are a million empty seats on those flights every year. It is a highly-priced competitive short-haul flow of aircraft and so it puts a lot of pressure on the travel agents the airline industry and the like.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.RINO TIRIKATENE: As I was saying before the dinner break the tourism industry has identified the actual benefits from lowering or having no travel taxes imposed. It has been working very closely with our Australian counterparts. There are a million vacant unused seats on those routes and the tourism industry research said that there could possibly be a 13 percent yield in benefits from maintaining or having lower or no travel taxes imposed. But what has this Government done? It has actually done the complete opposite and we are now imposing our own travel tax. The other point I want to make is around what the proceeds from this travel tax will be going towards. As we know it is going towards protecting our borders and biosecurity. Basically this is an admission from this Government that its border management has been underperforming. This measure is an admission of that and what we have seen are the incursions of fruit flies and other nasty organisms that pose a real threat to our primary industry especially. So this should not be taken lightly. It is a very very serious matter our biosecurity system. I know that the Ministry for Primary Industries has various levels of protection I guess that we use. But this is an admission that the Government has been underperforming because you know you are in trouble when you have to call your fisheries officers out to try to chase a fruit fly or look after a sick pig. You know you are in trouble when you are doing that. Our dedicated and highly trained fish cops have been diverted by biosecurity matters.Kris Faafoi: Coast gets plundered.RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely and then the coast gets plundered. So that is an admission from this Government that it has underperformed in this area. It is a shame though that the Crown has funded our biosecurity system and our services and it should continue to do so. There is no need. It is hurting our tourism industry and it remains to be seen whether there is a reduction in visitor numbers as a result of the imposition of this tax. The other point I want to move on to now goes back to the Joint Border Management System . That is right that $100 million lemon which has not even been delivered yet. The full functionality has not been delivered and it is still kept a secret. If this travel tax is imposed I think that the travellers—the people who are leaving our shores and our tourists—have a right to know what their levy spend is actually going on. The Minister has given an assurance that with regards to the Joint Border Management System there is nothing to see and everything is all OK. Well if that is the case then why keep it secret? I believe that if Kiwis are paying this tax which is there to protect our borders and there is a joint system that has cost $100 million then Kiwis need to know what they are paying for. There has been a failure to deliver on the Job Border Management System. For cargo users of the Joint Border Management System there is a user-pays charge. They know what they are paying for. Well what is the passenger component? What is the passenger component of the Joint Border Management System? What is that passenger component because travellers have the right to know? They do have the right to know. If they are paying a levy for greater enhanced sophisticated risk analysis of their movements well then it is very fair that the public of New Zealand especially who have paid over $100 million so far have a right to know what they are actually getting. Enlighten us Minister. Enlighten the country as to what it is because what are the risks in intelligence tools that the Joint Border Management System is delivering? We want to know because they still have not been delivered yet. It is 3 years too late. It still has not been delivered. We have been told that the delivery date is going to be December this year but now it is getting put back. We are getting signals that it can be put back again. The Joint Border Management System actually is the engine room or it is supposed to be the computer systems that are joined up between the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service . So all of the passenger screenings and the biosecurity risk analysis are driven by the Joint Border Management System. If the travel tax is going towards that then we need to know what the passenger component is. Hopefully the Minister will enlighten us later on because that is a very serious issue of public interest given the huge price tag on this system which no one seems to know what it is doing and you never hear anything about it.Hon Nicky Wagner: It’s because it’s working so well.RINO TIRIKATENE: Well it is not working so well. If it was working so well why are you keeping it secret? Why are you keeping it secret Minister?Hon Nicky Wagner: Success is no news.RINO TIRIKATENE: This Minister has been negligent in suppressing the details. The public of New Zealand deserve an answer particularly now that all travellers who will be crossing our borders will be paying a levy that will be subjected to the Joint Border Management System. They are paying for it. They have a right to know what they are getting for their spend. So we are looking forward to your elucidation on that point. We know that this is just another tax we know it is a broken promise from this Government and we continue to oppose this bill.[Continuation line: Hon Nicky Wagner]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs)Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): The New Zealand public told us they wanted a safe border. They want to make sure that it is secure against illegal people and illegal goods—that is drugs firearms and objectionable material—and they want us to manage biosecurity risks such as fruit fly and foot-and-mouth disease  and that is what this levy will do. This levy in the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill will amend the Biosecurity Act and the Customs and Excise Act and it will place a border clearance levy for arriving and departing passengers. I want to make it very clear that this levy is only cost recovery. It will be put into a trust account. It will have nothing to do with the Joint Border Management System  because the Joint Border Management System deals with goods. This is to do with passengers and the Joint Border Management System deals with goods and Joint Border Management System goods have always had a levy. Goods have had a levy since the early 1990s so this is exactly the programme that we are going to introduce for passengers as well. I want to start by answering Mrs King’s question: what is the difference between a levy and a tax and why is it absolutely consistent that the Prime Minister has attacked the UK carbon tax and is absolutely supportive of this cost recovery levy? New Zealand’s cost recovery levy is about $20 maybe $22 and that reflects the cost that the New Zealand taxpayer is subsidising for every single passenger who comes across our border. The UK tax is about $150 and although $20 of it may be used for a border levy the rest of it is a carbon tax and it was designed to be a carbon tax. It is a carbon tax on distance a carbon tax on air miles flown for long-haul passengers. Of course that is calculated on the number of miles and that is particularly tough on a country like New Zealand on the opposite side of the world.[Continuation line: At the moment if you look at the status quo in New Zealand]Hon NICKY WAGNERAt the moment if you look at the status quo in New Zealand it is a lose-lose for New Zealanders. Every New Zealander is paying for other people to come across our border. Then on top of that when New Zealanders go to another country they have to pay to go across others’ borders. So not only are we paying for our own borders but we are also paying for everybody else’s borders. That is lose-lose. This change will mean that it is best international practice and it will bring New Zealand into a place that is much more satisfactory for New Zealanders. I would also like to explain to Mr Lees-Galloway about the cost of this. It is all to do with addition. What our press release said was that it is going to cost $16 at arrival. The levy is $16 at arrival and $6 at departure. The reason for that is that there is much more work at arrivals than there is at departure because we deal with biosecurity at arrivals rather than at departure. But instead of it being inflationary as he seems to think it is actually going to be deflationary because I think it is probably going to end up at about $20. We believe it is $20 well spent for New Zealanders to protect our borders. Just let me make it very clear. This is in comparison with Australia which is $58 and the UK which is $150. Let us now have a little bit of a chat about the Joint Border Management System. I would like to answer Mr Shearer’s queries and Mr Tirikatene’s questions. The Joint Border Management System is working well. I will make it clear again. It manages goods not passengers. Goods have always paid a cost levy. So this levy actually brings passengers in line with goods. I am really pleased to be able to announce a really good news story. Right now we are able to tell you that the Joint Border Management System has just reached 2 million transactions. I did put out a press release about this time last year when we got to 500000. But we have now got to 2 million—Stuart Smith: Wow 2 million.Hon NICKY WAGNER: Fantastic. And on top of that exporters now have the ability the tools to be able to register online themselves. In the past it used to take 24 hours to register online. They can now do it within minutes. That is a fantastic improvement for the Joint Border Management System. I would also like to tell you that every week more companies are transferring to WC03 which is the new data protocol. This is cutting edge latest technology latest data protocol and every week more and more of our transactions through the Joint Border Management System are moving that way. I would just like to make the point that the Customs Service is 175 years old this year. It is the oldest department—175 years. We are also dealing with cutting edge technology cutting edge IT and I think it just goes to show that you can teach old dogs new tricks. Also I would like to make a comment for the member Steffan Browning. He was concerned about private yachts. This levy will be in place for private yachts private aircraft and anybody who comes across our borders. As it is now every yacht and every aircraft that comes into New Zealand goes through the customs process for arrival and departure and we will collect the levy at that time. So he needs to understand that we will be doing a good job. And finally I want to get back to Rino Tirikatene again. I just want to tell him that we are not taking biosecurity or security at our border lightly. He seems to think we take it lightly. He probably has not realised that we have actually put $30 million in this Budget to beef up what we are doing at the border on top of this levy. So in the meantime this $30 million is going in this Budget. I also want to tell him that nobody seems to believe that this will make a difference to tourists’ behaviour. This is less than 1 percent for a long-haul flight the cost and it is only one of thousands of variables that people have when they travel. For example how much does it cost you to get to the airport? What do you eat at the airport? What do you buy duty free? What do you spend on entertainment on the plane? What do you spend in your country? The interesting thing is that I had a look at some research that said in the last month the average Australian visitor to New Zealand lost more than $20 just on the exchange rate between Australia and New Zealand. So this is not going to make a difference. In fact I have a quote from a well-respected tourist leader who says: “It won’t make a blind bit of difference.” I just want to summarise why this levy is so important for New Zealand and why New Zealanders should be pleased to see it. First of all it is flexible and future proofed. As the numbers of passengers and travellers increase across our borders the resources will be there to manage them. As we get more and they are more risky we will be able to make sure that we keep our borders safe. It is also fairer. I have explained that at the moment every New Zealander every Tom Dick and Harry is paying $23 in their tax to subsidise international people coming across our borders—people who are on a luxury cruise people who are coming play golf in New Zealand. So why should the Whangarei panel beater or the solo parent in Christchurch pay for these people to come across our borders? What we have got now because the rest of the world is putting on these levies is a lose-lose for all New Zealanders. I just want to make one little reflection before I go. Before I was an MP I did not used to like paying tax. I think it was because Labour was in power and I did not trust the way it spent the money. But now I do understand where the money is going. I know that it is spent wisely and I do not feel so bad about our tax. Most New Zealanders want their tax money to go to something useful. They want it to go to perhaps poorer families. They want it to go to hip operations. They want it to go to education. People like their tax to go to something useful not to subsidise international passengers. So this levy is good for New Zealand. It is good for New Zealanders and I commend this bill to the House.[Continuation line: Grant Robertson]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): There is hope for Stuart Smith because before the dinner break he got up and he told New Zealand what we all know: tonight we are debating a new tax that the National Party brought in. We on this side of the House over dinner were discussing what a tragic end this was to Stuart Smith’s political career—so short burnt bright and out on one night. But Nicky Wagner has saved him. Stuart Smith could be the next Nicky Wagner—that is what we are finding out tonight—because she has just told us that the promise has been broken No new taxes. That was the promise and Nicky Wagner has just told us right now that it is a tax. Every single New Zealander knows that Nicky Wagner and John Key went on the television last night and invited New Zealanders to Google the difference between “tax” and “levy”. So I have done that and I can tell you that a tax is a compulsory contribution to State revenue levied by the Government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods services and transactions—something that we understand a tax to be. If we go to the Google of “a levy” it is “a tax” or in fact both—the verb to impose a tax and the act of levying a tax. In fact some dictionaries go on to say “Use the word ‘levy’ as you would use the word ‘tax’.” So there we go—it is all there right here for you. We are happy to table it for you John. It is one with pictures so you will be fine; you will be good with that. So what we now have is a levy that is a tax and a tax is a levy except the Prime Minister does not think that either of them are the same. We are through the looking glass. This is what Humpty Dumpty told us: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.” John Key is through the looking glass with Humpty Dumpty breaking the promise breaking the—Hon Craig Foss: Come on it was poetry.GRANT ROBERTSON: Poetry? You would not know a poem if you fell over it Mr Foss. This is a broken promise. That is what this is. It is not just a broken promise to the voters of New Zealand who were told at the election by all the National candidates over there that there would be no new taxes it is a broken promise to the airline industry. The board and airline representatives have made it quite clear that “National’s new tax”—they understand that—“breaches the understanding reached in 2003. Airlines already meet the full costs of aviation safety and in return the Government met the cost of Customs. Under the deal the Government was to bear the cost of agricultural screening which is deemed to be for the benefit of the primary industries.[Continuation line: It is a broken promise to New Zealanders]GRANT ROBERTSONIt is a broken promise to New Zealanders; a broken promise to the airline industry. But of course we all know that John Key is a straight-talking guy. If he went to a conference of a sector that was going to be deeply affected by something that was happening in the Budget—oh I do not know—2 days after his speech he might mention it to them. John Key goes to the Tourism Industry Association conference last week and it slips his mind. Obviously there are a lot of things on his mind but he fails to even mention it.Carmel Sepuloni: Slippery mind—that is why.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right—because he is indeed Carmel Sepuloni very very slippery. It is a sneaky tax it is a broken promise and that is all that New Zealanders will see it as. But it gets worse. As we look through the regulatory impact statement—and I hate to break this to the Minister Nicky Wagner who got up to give us the numbers before; we had 16 20 and 22. Do I have any advance on 22—no apparently not according to the Minister. Except that when we look at the regulatory impact statement it says as it goes through about the model of the levy: “[All of] this work will inform the final levy design including the level of the levy.” So the level of the levy—which is a tax—will still now be part of the consultation process. This is a bizarre situation. Here we are at 20 past 7 on a Saturday night apparently urgently passing this legislation to enable the imposition of this tax and the final design of the tax—the level of the tax—is not even going to be worked out. It is off for consultation. It is like going to the city council to get a building consent and saying: “We are pretty sure the house is going to have some walls and we might put a roof on it and there could be a floor but look we’ll work it later. Just give us the consent now.” That is what the National Party is doing tonight. There are all sorts of questions about who it will apply to will there be exemptions. Here is a question for the National members: will there be exemptions? Will it apply to every person who crosses the border? There is silence—absolute silence. They have not got a clue whether this tax will apply to every person who comes across the border. Here is a question for you: would it have applied to Prince Harry? No one—no one; they have not got a clue. They do not know what this is about. They have come to this House will an ill-thought-out tax—Carmel Sepuloni: Will it apply to Gerry Brownlee?GRANT ROBERTSON: Will it apply to Gerry Brownlee? He will sneak through so it will not apply to him. Actually someone called Gerry—his phone is on the desk so I am not sure what happened there. He may have been a bit angry earlier on and ripped it off. Ring up Gerry Brownlee and find out whether this tax will apply to him. At the moment what we are being asked to pass in this Parliament is a piece of legislation to impose a tax that the Government does not know how much is going to be does not know whom it will apply to could not tell us how much it is going to cost to administer and does not know exactly who is going to administer. It is a shambles.Chris Hipkins: But it is very urgent.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is extremely urgent but it is a complete shambles and it is a total broken promise which symbolises everything about this Budget—a tax that on travellers that is a broken promise a property tax about which Bill English said today he did not even know whether it would work; he is not too sure about that. These are broken promises and a shambolic Budget. On this side of the House in a second reading debate we really should be debating now the contributions of all of the people who submitted at the select committee—the tourism industry the airline industry travellers—and we do not have their voices here today. For all of those reasons we cannot support this bill.[Continuation line: Ian McKelvie]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I will be very brief. I commiserate with Mr Smith; I would not want to be on Grant Robertson’s dinner plate. Two very quick points: the levy will not put an impost on those who cannot afford to pay it. It is worth remembering that. The second point about this is that the levy also affords further protection to the income streams of rural and provincial New Zealand thus boosting the potential for rural and provincial New Zealand to participate in or make a contribution to the Government’s growth targets. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.Continuation line: Steffan BrowningBorder Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - STEFFAN BROWNING (Green)STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. Following on from what the Labour members were saying this shows a sad lack of process. We might be supporting the bill but we think there is a very sad lack of process. We agree that there should have been submissions to a select committee which would have added a much better context. As we heard we might want to see a little bit of fairer balance between the fees on the tourism industry and the importers and the fees on the people who will be coming in. I am wondering which one actually deserves to pay the most. We are hearing that it will be $16 probably—probably but we do not know about the exemptions. It will be $16 out maybe $6 in and possibly $22—we do not know. For every importation an importer pays $13.15 from 1 July or depending on another level $17.37. It is pretty similar money. I am just wondering that if we had submissions and had some very solid depth to this we would understand which one was the riskier which one should pay to get the balance right. I am just wondering if we had submissions and we had some very solid depth to this we would understand which one was the riskier which one should pay to get the balance right if we are talking about biosecurity alone. I would like to know that. I would like to know probably from the Cabinet papers that we have not seen or the other papers that we have not seen yet in terms of the real costings to see where the risk lies and what the cost-benefit ratios of each would be. Under what sort of consultation will that happen? Consultation will not be that thorough it will not have that opportunity from our previous experience. I started on a story before about where the Minister is going with biosecurity. He said that it was his most important area. I believe him actually. I think he is doing quite well in that area but he will never do well enough if he is using 2008 when National came into power and did these big cuts. It would appear that the Minister Nathan Guy has got us back in dollar terms to 2008. But 2008 was not good enough either. Before that in the previous Labour Government we had didymo the varroa mite and a lot more. We appear to be increasing. Of course we have more tourists and we have more trade and we need to go a lot lot further. The Minister has done some catching up. I want to know from the Minister what his real numbers are in terms of staff and in terms of dogs at the moment. Some of the time he talks about new staff and new dogs but that we are still not up to those 2008 numbers and the question is whether this Budget or this bill will help exceed those numbers and ultimately exceed it significantly. Good on the Minister. It is real shame about the incursions that we got and are still getting because of the huge knock-backs that happened following 2008. There is a whole range of different pests and diseases that have come in at different times and that have not been managed very well. Theileria is one that possibly came in with cattle; it may have come in with some other animal. Where is the tax for that one? Did Psa come in pollen in a matchbox in somebody’s luggage? Was varroa on a bee in a matchbox in someone’s luggage? Didymo was probably on some fisherman tourist’s spongy boots I would expect that kauri dieback was probably brought in on machinery but we do not know for sure. How did the Hadda beetle come in? We assume that the great white butterfly at Port Nelson came from the port; we assume it did not come with a tourist but we do not know. Psyllid—all these have had massive costs to this economy and to this country. A number of them are carrying on with significant costs. They have come in because of inadequate biosecurity controls and not only that will this fund address the next stage—the clean-ups the dealing with those incursions?Continuation line: They are finally getting on to the great white butterfly]STEFFAN BROWNINGThey are finally getting on to the great white butterfly thanks to the Minister possibly listening to the Greens and others. The Department of Conservation was actually the one that really got it moving because the Ministry for Primary Industries did not but ultimately between them it appears they may have got control. But at what huge cost was that and threat to both biodiversity and also the agricultural economy. The Theileria which I mentioned before is here for ever. How did this Government manage that? Absolutely woefully. MAF Biosecurity is underfunded. I do not think MAF Biosecurity staff are bad. I do not think they are incapable. I just think there are far too few of them and they keep getting mucked around being told to do a new strategy. I think we are on the third new strategy within a decade—the third new strategy. And then some of the pathways work that looks to be actually meaningful in getting there is getting some funding knocked off it. That Theileria is huge: it will be costing us hundreds of millions of dollars in the near years—what it has cost and what it will carry on costing in lost production. There is major lost production: the loss of cows being able to carry embryos to conceive other ones dying ill thrift lack of production—a massive cost. Varroa is still costing us and will continue to cost us. These things also mean we end up using pesticides that we do not need to be using in this country if we were to stop these things at the border or clean up absolutely immediately. I mentioned the fruit fly earlier and that clean-up. I visited the Auckland area several times to see how they were doing this and how they were managing this fruit fly incursion. I believe that they did not have adequate advice. Again the staff are pretty good and I have met with some of them and had a briefing and understand what their logic was. Funding did not open up to further advice to do a better quicker job and as I heard from one of our fellow members over here before the cost was something like 50 percent of turnover for some of the businesses. I watched the changes in that and eventually we got some better systems in and businesses were able to start a little bit more freely. But there are still impositions on business in that area and no doubt there will be a lot more in spring again until we get the all clear. So the Greens will support this but we want to see a lot more than this going into biosecurity and customs clearance. Thank you.[Continuation line: Prosser]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise to take a call in the second reading of the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill as it scurries its way urgently through the House. In the absence of a select committee process—or any other mechanism of public scrutiny come to that—it appears that all we have left as a means for ascertaining the reasons behind this bill and for getting some kinds of answers out of the Government is this process of urgency. I have to say that I am a little hurt that Minister Wagner addressed everyone’s questions except mine. I am not taking it personally it is just I want to know why. Maybe they were questions that the Minister felt she could not answer. Maybe they cut too deeply to the heart of the matter. But anyway I am sure that the Minister will take the opportunity to address the concerns that we have as a party. The first question I have is that we have been given an indication that this levy—fee tax whatever we want to call it—is going to be added on to the cost of tickets and that will be tickets that are sold here going outwards and tickets that are purchased overseas coming inwards and what I want to know from the Government is at what stage of the GST process does this levy get applied. Does this levy get applied before GST is added or after? Is it in fact going to have GST on it as well and is it going to be another tax upon a tax in the same way as GST on rates is a tax on a tax? This is another case of what happens in terms of unintended consequences—or perhaps actually they are intended consequences—when due process is done away with and things happen in a hurry and there is not the time for reflection and contemplation and consideration and questions being asked and answered. Maybe this is one of these things that will just get sorted out later. If they do not want to make it a tax upon a tax and add GST on to the levy well then there is going to have to be a whole lot more administration involved and that is going to raise the cost as well so the value of the levy itself is going to fall—unless of course they do not mind adding a tax on a tax but this we will find out I suppose at some stage in the future. What is really starting to coalesce as being the centre point of our difficulty with this bill is that we do not know whether this levy is intended to be additional funding for biosecurity or whether it is actually intended to just replace existing funding. Mr McKelvie in his long rambling speech of about 30 seconds I think it was spoke of a boost to biosecurity funding. But the Minister has consistently talked about cost recovery. Well it is one or the other. You know it is either an additional source of funding or it is a switch in funding from one source to another and I have a horrible suspicion—and it is growing on me all the time—that in fact this levy which is touted as being a boost and an increase for biosecurity is in fact smoke and mirrors and that actually funding allocated to biosecurity will be flat-lined and it is just the source of it that will change. When you drill down through the mud of the Government’s Budget figures it seems that all the appropriations relating to what used to be Vote Biosecurity and now appears to go by a number of different names are either flat or slightly reduced. There is a one-off capital injection to fund new x-ray machines—we see that. Whether that is actually funded by the levy or the tax or not remains to be seen. There is a mention of some additional staff but that comes in some of the Government’s publicity material and not actually in the bill itself. Again there is no clear indication as to whether the ongoing funding for these things for the additional staff and for the x-ray machines will be coming solely from the levy or partly from the levy or whether the existing baseline funding from general taxation will continue or not and the levy will be on top. This we actually need to know. Last year I think it was we passed Airports Cost Recovery Act. Airports where that levy applies will not also have the new levy. That to my mind adds weight to the idea that this levy—tax—as it is being suggested is intended to be the primary source of funding for border inspection activities and not an additional source. Cargo inspection as we know—containers and freight coming in—is already funded through levies and fees. But we also know that only about one in four only about 25 percent of incoming shipping containers are actually inspected. I would like to see increases in this levy as well if indeed the passenger funding is to be additional to existing revenue. The Customs Service website advertises inspection fees for containers for the importation of personal household effects of $330 for a 20-foot container up to $480 for a 40-foot container plus fumigation if necessary. That is for the likes of people migrating to New Zealand or New Zealanders who have been away coming home—their personal effects and so forth. So we know that all these containers are inspected because that fee is charged and paid and there is a devanning process. But the great majority of containers general freight are not inspected. There is an audit process where some are taken out or there will be a period of time or—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Passenger levy.RICHARD PROSSER: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. They are not inspected. There are not enough inspectors and I am wondering whether any of this levy is to be directed to that sort of thing. We would actually like to see the levy extended for that. That is a large barn door that has been left open. Our other primary concern is whether or not this levy is simply in fact a holiday tax. It gets back to my earlier questions around whether or not this is an additional stream of funding or a replacement stream of funding. I do not believe that the travelling public would mind too much about paying $16 on top of their air tickets to come into the country if that was going to contribute to additional safety in terms of making sure that New Zealand does not get diseases like foot and mouth and so forth. We would certainly expect and the New Zealand travelling public would certainly expect that overseas travellers would pay that as well.[Continuation line: The primary sector certainly expects that any person who is a source]RICHARD PROSSERThe primary sector certainly expects that any one any person who is a source of potential risk will pay their fair share. It is fairness and the relative fairness of who is expected to pay what that is at the heart of this matter. So we would like some clarity around that. It is puzzling as to why we would be charging a $6 levy for people to leave the country. I know that the Minister has explained that this is to add to or cover the costs of customs for people on the way out. Customs and biosecurity we know are two different things. But again it makes me suspicious that if we are going to charge a levy on passengers leaving the country paying $6 towards the cost of running the Customs Service that to me says very loud and clear that actually this is a replacement source of revenue not an additional source of revenue.Hon Nicky Wagner: This puts $4.7 million for departures.RICHARD PROSSER: Well I would love the Minister the stand up in the Committee stage and spell this out quite clearly. I want an assurance from the Minister that this levy is going to be on top of existing baseline taxation funding for biosecurity and customs not instead of. There is just too much ambiguity about it. The way the Government is spinning this thing as being great and marvellous and wonderful and additional—maybe I am a naturally suspicious person but it seems to me as if what we are going to wind up with at the end of this whole process is the same amount of money coming from a different place and not actually an increase. Actually most of the bill is concerned with who collects the money and what trust accounts it goes in and what records need to be kept and what penalties will apply if these rules and conditions are broken. It actually does not say anything at all about what the money will be spent on other than Government statements around funding for biosecurity which itself is a welcome thing. The explanatory note states: “The objective of this Bill is to ensure that funding arrangements for MPI and Customs are sustainable and the costs associated with the delivery of those activities are borne by those who directly benefit from the activities or give rise to the risks.” I mean costs being borne by those who directly benefit—Hon Nicky Wagner: That’s what a levy is.RICHARD PROSSER: Well in terms of customs Minister I do not understand that because arguably the only direct beneficiary from a customs inspection would be the Customs Service itself. Although the entire nation benefits from biosecurity inspections the primary sector could arguably be called the primary beneficiary from biosecurity but it is not being targeted by the levy at all. I am not saying that it should carry more of the cost—he primary sector pays tax and tax currently pays for biosecurity—but it is a direct beneficiary and yet this levy appears to be targeting a group that is not a direct beneficiary which again is confusing. The descriptions in the bill itself talk about functions. OK. I guess “functions” can mean anything. We would like a bit of that spelled out a bit more clearly. Another question is: do cruise ship passengers get to pay the exit and entry levies four times over if for example their cruise ship stops in Auckland and in Wellington and in Lyttelton and in Port Chalmers? Because if the ship goes outside the 12 mile limit arguably the passenger has left New Zealand and then come back in again and gone out and come back in and gone out and come back in. Do they get stung with a fee every time they leave and every time they arrive again? Why have we not been told these things? Again there is no mention of whether or not this additional or altered source of funding is going to be used to reinstate 100 percent screening of all incoming passengers’ luggage mail and freight. This is something we are quite hot on. It is something that will actually make a material difference. Rearranging the beans into different sized heaps before you count them does not actually increase the number of beans. Again we have questions that are—Hon Craig Foss: What does Jack think?RICHARD PROSSER: Jack and the Beanstalk.[continuation line: Stuart Smith]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call James Shaw—5 minutes.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERJAMES SHAW (Green): I have got a couple of questions I would like a response from the Government side about one of which is the question of the money. There were three press releases relating to the levy and there is a question about whether this replaces existing money or whether it is actually new money. One of the press releases was talking about how biosecurity funding will be boosted by $24.9 million over 4 years plus $2 million of capital funding. A second press release talked about how the Customs Service would receive a $4.7 million operating funding increase. The general release about the airport tax said that the Ministry for Primary Industries and Customs Service currently spend about $100 million a year and that the airport tax is expected to raise about $100 million a year. That would imply that the new airport tax would raise an equivalent amount to what is currently being spent. I just wanted to check with the Government. The $24.9 million boost over 4 years and then the $2 million capital funding for biosecurity—does that come out of the $100 millionHon Nicky Wagner: No.JAMES SHAW: —or is it additional? And the same with the $4.7 million—is that out of the $100 million or is that—Hon Nicky Wagner: New money.JAMES SHAW: That is actually new money. OK. And then the second question was around the Customs Service press release. This is relating to the privacy concern that we flagged in my first reading speech. I just wanted to read it and then get a response. “ ‘The officers will use the targeting techniques that Customs currently applies to arriving international passengers to identify departing passengers of interest who are unknown to security agencies or not on an international watch list’ Ms Wagner says. ‘Customs officers will take appropriate action at the border before a person of interest leaves the country. This could include stopping them for questioning or alerting other authorities in New Zealand or abroad. Extended-risk screening for departures will complement the existing automated and face-to-face passport checks and the alert system already in place and will provide an additional source of intelligence. The aim is to counter potential terrorist activity maintain New Zealand’s low risk status and contribute to international efforts to combat terrorism’ Ms Wagner says.” From a Green Party perspective we have a pretty strong civil liberties kind of strain in the Green Party and some of that language there flags some concerns. So I would like it if at some point during the course of the debate the Minister would not mind saying just a little bit more about that and describing any new technologies or any risks analyses that have been done on what the implications are for personal privacy and security. And then the one I guess that everybody is waiting for. In the Ministry for Primary Industries release it does mention that it will be “Expanding our biosecurity detector dog capacity”—I am speaking to particular constituents here obviously—“to manage risk at the border.” The Government has made a great deal about the number of people who are returning home from Australia. I just wanted to check whether those dogs are going to be beagles or Alsatians because I think beagles will be a great deal more attractive and bring more people back home.Hon Nicky Wagner: Labs. Customs likes labs.JAMES SHAW: OK. Thank you.[continuation line: Faafoi]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Kris Faafoi—5 minutes.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak briefly to the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. I believe that the questions just posed by the Green member of Parliament James Shaw are good ones. The time of this Parliament would not be being taken up asking these questions if this piece of legislation had followed the normal process. If we had a select committee stage this piece of legislation would have gone to either the Primary Production Committee or perhaps the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and these really basic questions could have been answered. But no we are here at 11 minutes to 8 on a Saturday night. I know that some of the members across the other side of the House do not want to be here but it is their own fault. It is their own fault because this did not have to be rushed through this Parliament under urgency. Some of the very basic questions that Mr Shaw is asking could have been answered. The process has been completely backwards and that is plain to see in the departmental disclosure report where a simple question was asked: “Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?”. Usually that is something that is basic and is on the table for us so we can get answers to some of these simple questions that Mr Shaw has asked that Mr Prosser has asked that members from the Labour Party have asked. But the answer to that question is no. It is quite surprising that we have got to this stage—we are into the second reading of this bill—and a departmental report says: “A Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was not prepared in support of the decision to implement the policy. However the regulatory impact of imposing a levy”—that is the Government’s spin—“and alternative options was set out … in the Cabinet paper proposing its introduction. A consultation RIS will be prepared and submitted for consideration by Cabinet when approval is sought in late May”—in about a week or so well after this piece of legislation is going to be passed. This is just not good enough. If this Government wants to introduce a new tax a travel tax on New Zealanders put it through the wringer through the scrutiny of a select committee.[continuation line: But no it did not warn anyone]KRIS FAAFOIBut no it did not warn anyone. It said there would be no new taxes. So to try to get away and sweep this under the carpet it puts this legislation under urgency at 10 to 8 while it thinks people are watching the Hurricanes beat the Blues. I will come to a conclusion soon but I would just like to also make a plea to members on my side of the House: take it easy on Stuart Smith. He is a new member to the House it is his first urgency he is a bit tired he has had a hard week he let his guard down and he got caught out telling the truth. Let us forgive him. Let us forgive him for that because he only confirmed what we already know: this is not a levy; in fact it is a tax. It is not the first time that the Government has used this urgency to bring in another tax. The telecommunications development levy was also a tax and this is also a tax. Let us forgive Mr Smith. Forgive him. But we cannot forgive Nicky Wagner. She is the Minister. She is the Minister and she let it out also that this is a tax. A tax is a tax is tax. The Prime Minister says that this tax will not make a blind bit of difference but I do not think that is necessarily the case because what did the Tourism Export Council’s chief executive Lesley Immink I think it is—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—say a couple of days after the Prime Minister spoke to its conference? She said: “Well this is a clear surprise. It is the first reaction that there was no discussion with either the inbound or outbound tourism agencies in New Zealand on the implications for the traveller.” Mr Key went along and spoke to them but did not bother telling them. What is the go there? Mr Chair the Prime Minister also posed a pretty simple question—Mr Speaker sorry. I have got the jitters from the Committee stage sorry Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister posed a pretty simple question. Is it a levy or is it a tax? He said: “Go Google it.” We Googled it. It is a tax—end of story.[Continuation line: Craig Foss]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business)Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): An additional $100 million to protect the biosecurity of New Zealand—an extra $100 million to protect the economy of this country—and ladies and gentlemen Labour is voting against it. Labour is voting against an additional extra $100 million to protect jobs in the region and to protect our economy. Do Labour members agree that the increase in the numbers of visitors to our country means that biosecurity risks are ever increasing? Do they agree with that? I certainly hope so because the Labour Party policy on biosecurity says exactly that. This levy will help boost the capability of the biosecurity system to identify offshore threats to the many and varied production sectors across primary industries such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome and foot-and-mouth disease . This additional $100 million will protect our nation our country our jobs our regions and our biosecurity. That is what that will achieve. Labour members are actually voting against their own policy which is on their own website. I actually think that originally they were going to vote for this. I do worry deeply. Thank you to the Greens for their support even though they had many questions. My only concern about this is that perhaps we have done something a little bit wrong because we have got support from the Greens. But maybe just maybe this is the new beginning. Congratulations—perhaps I am a bit early—on this new sensible approach of the Greens dealing with sensible policies from this fine National Government. Is this the beginning of the blue-green revolution Mr Shaw? Perhaps it might well be. Jobs in the regions jobs across New Zealand—it just shows how out of touch Labour is with the regions. It is voting against an additional $100 million to protect biosecurity to protect our land-based industries and to protect jobs. Labour is no longer the party of the workers; National has always been. Once again this additional $100 million to protect regional jobs is a fine worker-friendly and job-friendly policy of this fine National Government. I commend this fine bill to the House.[Continuation line: Chris Hipkins]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): About the only impact that speech by Craig Foss made on this particular debate was to destroy James Shaw’s chances of becoming the next co-leader of the National Party—of the Green Party. He could well become the next co-leader of the National Party too. Craig Foss rants and raves about the extra $100 million to protect biosecurity that this new tax that the National Party is introducing is going to raise. What he did not say was that the National Government cut funding from biosecurity in the first place. This new tax it is introducing is to restore cuts that it made before and to restore funding for things that were previously funded out of general taxation. Now it is introducing extra taxes to pay for something that it cut previously. That is what this Government is all about. I want to talk about this picture of course. “No new taxes” John Key and Bill English went around the country promising New Zealanders at the last election. But actually there was another part of this that is very important. Because look at the little bubble above that. It says: “A strong economy means no new taxes”. So which bit did they break? Which promise did they break?Rino Tirikatene: All of them.CHRIS HIPKINS: All of them probably—both of them. National is delivering a new tax so it has clearly broken that promise. “A strong economy”—it has not delivered on that one either. It has broken that promise too. This is a Government that is breaking all of its pre-election promises. “No new taxes”—that is not true. This is the third of three new taxes introduced in this Budget alone. Its first Budget since the election and it is the first set of broken promises. Of course we know National Party members cannot be trusted at their word because let us just go back to just on a year ago when John Key flew to the UK—at the taxpayers’ expense without paying this tax on the way in or the way out—to encourage them to remove the taxes that they have on Kiwi passengers going in and out of the UK.Hon Annette King: He called them taxes.CHRIS HIPKINS: He called them taxes. “Prime Minister and tourism Minister John Key has welcomed the British Government’s decision to reduce taxes for passenger flights to New Zealand. ‘I have consistently advocated for such a change’ John Key said ‘which will benefit travelling New Zealanders and encourage more tourists to come to New Zealand.’” Only a year ago John Key was arguing that another Government should be reducing its taxes to encourage people to come to New Zealand. And how has he responded in kind? By whacking our own taxes up on them in this year’s Budget. Of course we do not know how much that is going to be. Of course the tax changes that were made in the UK which were welcomed by the New Zealand Government reduced the cost to the travelling public of about $50. We do not know how much this levy is going to be. First we were told it was only going to be about $16.[Continuation line: Then we were told it was only going to be about $20]CHRIS HIPKINSThen we were told it was only going to be about $20. Then we were told it was only going to be only about $22. That is all in the space of a couple of hours. I tell you what the longer this debate goes—it will get to fifty bucks before midnight at the rate that the Government is going on that side of the House. When the Government said that there was going to be no new taxes why did it not tell New Zealanders that there were a whole lot of riders on that? It was just going to try to call them something else and pretend they were not actually taxes. Because it can dress it up as a “levy” but it is actually a tax. As for the reassurances that “Oh this is a levy. It is going to be ring-fenced. It is going to go into a fund. It is not about ensuring that the Government gets back into surplus. There are no implications for that whatsoever.” That is of course what people in Governments for years have been arguing about ACC and yet it has kept ACC levies high—artificially high—in order to try to create the illusion of a Government surplus when we know that it is not going to be able to deliver one. It is certainly not going to deliver one this year and it is highly unlikely it is going to be able to deliver one next year because we know that Treasury has said that unless the price of milk rebounds the surplus next year is in doubt as well. So we get the Government saying that this is not a new tax. We know the Oxford English dictionary describes a levy as a “tax raised by levying”—a tax raised by levying. So it is a little bit like John Key’s promise that he was not going to increase GST. He will probably argue that was not a tax either but he increased GST despite making a specific promise down the barrel of the camera that he was not going to raise GST and he did exactly that. So who is this new levy going to apply to? Is it going to apply to everybody travelling across the border in New Zealand? Will there be any exemptions? What about the people who barge their way through security without going through the appropriate channels? Will this apply to Gerry Brownlee? Gerry Brownlee bypasses security. Pick up the phone that he has broken off the desk and give him a call. Will Gerry Brownlee pay this particular levy? Will all of the people coming to New Zealand pay this levy?[Continuation line: How can the current Government be trusted to give factual information]CHRIS HIPKINSHow can the current Government be trusted to give factual information upon that? This is yet another broken promise by this National Government and it is barely beginning this term in Government. New Zealanders can expect many more broken promises from the National Government and I am sure that is what we are going to see because this Government really has no major plan or vision for the future of this country. It is tinkering around the edges. It is dealing with little bits here and there but it is not dealing with the big issues that are actually going to result in New Zealanders earning better incomes having better jobs being able to afford houses and having a higher standard of living. That is not what the Government is dealing with and trying to deliver in this Budget because it does not know how. It has not got any new ideas it does not have a vision for the brighter future that it has promised New Zealanders and even if it did have the goal of delivering its brighter future it just has no idea how to do it.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I commend this Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill to the House. Thank you.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have reason to believe that the previous speaker read her speech from her notes in contravention of the Standing Orders.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Humorous but not a point of order.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillIn CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all questions in this debate to be considered as one question.Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I put the leave in the terms that have been put—all debates as one question. Any objection? There is not objection. So we now have all of the debates.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillIn CommitteeHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): This of course is now a wide-ranging debate because we can cover absolutely everything that is in the bill in one job lot. The first thing that I wanted to say to the members opposite is we are voting against this bill because it is a nasty sneaky little tax that has been brought into this House with no consultation with the very industry bodies that are affected by it. That is not good policy-making. I want to go back to trust because in 2003 the Government in conjunction with the airline industry and the tourism industry decided on an agreement. It was agreed that the airline industry would be responsible for aviation safety because it benefited airlines and passengers and the Government would pay for customs and for agricultural screening because it was of benefit to the public and to primary industries. The first question to the Minister in the chair is: did he go and consult with the industries that were part of that agreement that was made in 2003? Did he go and speak to the airline industry and to the tourism industry before he had work done on this bill and before this bill was brought before this Parliament?[Continuation line: When did that consultation take place?]Hon ANNETTE KINGWhen did that consultation take place? Did he say to those in the industry: “I am going to break an agreement that was made in 2003.” an agreement that they would pay for the aviation safety costs and that the Government would pay for agriculture and customs? I want to know if the Minister did not consult what right has he got to come into this Parliament and override an agreement that was made between the Government the airlines and also the tourism industry? You see when you treat such agreements in such a cavalier way there cannot be trust in a Government. You cannot believe what it is going to do and what it is going to say. So Minister when did that consultation—if there was any consultation—take place? Were they warned that you wanted to bring in a tax that was going to have to be added to the fares of the passengers travelling? The next question I want to ask the Minister is why was there no regulatory impact statement prepared for this bill? We have got the department’s disclosure statement. It is dated 10 May and it shows that it was done 11 days before the Budget . It also shows that no review or evaluation had been done on this policy. There is no regulatory impact statement but it does say that there is going to be consultation around a regulatory impact statement later on. Why Minister is there not a regulatory impact statement on the Table of this House so that the members of this Parliament could look at the musings that went on when you were deciding to put a tax on New Zealanders which will be paid by New Zealanders but I do not believe it was ever consulted on with the industries? When will we receive this public consultation document? We are told that there is going to be a public consultation document with a final design in October 2015 so when is it going to be available for perhaps this House to have a look at—well at least for the industry to have a look at? Maybe the public would want to have a look at it because after all they are given no input into this bill at all. There are no submissions on this bill. It was just slam bam here it is—another tax. There was no ability to be able to have a say on it at all. So Minister the consultation document or the regulatory impact analysis—when will that be available to sit on the floor of this House and when will we get to debate that? What we are seeing here is a Government that wants us to pass under urgency legislation tonight without the detail and I am surprised that the Green Party would be voting for something that it does not know the detail of. Those members are putting their trust in a Government that has already welched on a deal with the airline industry and the tourism industry. Why would any party put its trust in a Government that has not honoured an agreement that has been in place since 2003? We were all told: “Just trust the Government. It is going to give us the details later on.” We are not even sure that it will be the levy that we are being told about tonight. It may or may not be $22. I suspect that as they work on the detail and the design of this maybe there are a few other things that will creep in—“Oh no we didn’t mean $22. It has just gone up to $27. No no maybe it’s $35.”[Continuation line: You see why should we trust a Government that could not honour]Hon ANNETTE KINGWhy should we trust a Government that could not honour an agreement that it made? I would like to see the Regulations Review Committee look at the design of these taxes after it has finalised what they are going to be. I would like that committee to see if in fact this is a levy or a tax that is actually doing what they say it is going to do and the right of amount of money has been taxed and levied against New Zealanders. I think we ought to insist that the Regulations Review Committee look at this. This is setting a levy tax. We have had no consultation with the public. We do not know whether it does cover the costs. We are told that by 2016-17 we are going to have $80 million gathered from it and we are told it goes into a trust account and therefore cannot be used for anything else. Well as we said what happened to ACC? What happened to ACC? That is a dedicated levy that goes to an organisation that it can spend virtually on what it likes. Why should we believe the Government when it comes to this? I believe that this Government has been incredibly sneaky with this bill. It has brought it in without talking to the industry. The Government’s own Prime Minister who is the Minister of Tourism was two-faced to his own industry. He went to a conference and he did not tell them he was going to do this. Was it on your advice Minister that he did not tell them this is what was going to happen? I would like the Minister to now get on his feet and explain to this Committee whether the Government consulted with the industry before it did this. Has the Government discussed with the industry the agreement that was made in 2003? When are we going to get to look at what is going to be the design and the shape of this so-called tax levy? When is this House going to be able to scrutinise that? Is the Minister prepared for it to go to the Regulations Review Committee to see if it can see that this is a tax that has been properly imposed on New Zealanders? None of that has been answered tonight. I agree with Mr Prosser. There is so much missing that any party would be idiots to vote for this on trust from this Government.[Continuation line: ARDERN]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I rise to take just a short call on the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. We heard a lot during the first and second reading speeches that obviously from the Government’s perspective this was such an important issue for it that it wanted to put in place this levy to ensure that there was adequate funding to provide protections at our border controls. My question would be: how have we done that until now? Up until now how have we ensured that we have adequate border protections? We have done it without this levy/tax until this moment in time. This idea that this demonstrates what a priority it is for the Government really defies belief. It has been a priority of Governments in the past without a levy. That is not a justification for introducing something like this. My second question is that surely if this was as important as the Government claims then we would have more detail in this bill than we do right now. If it was such a priority why have we got this shallow framework of a bill rather than the detail that we would usually have in this House when considering such legislation? I really question whether it is the priority that the Government claims. I also wanted to come to clause 5 which inserts new section 140AA. That provides that every traveller who arrives in New Zealand on or after 1 January 2016 is liable to pay a levy. So that is basically the part that says the individual liability is on the traveller. I heard one of the speakers on the other side of the Chamber claim that another rationale for us having to introduce this levy is that we have got more passengers coming here. We have got more passengers; therefore we should make those individual passengers pick up this tax or levy. But the question that arose for me when hearing that is that actually the risk has always been there. Regardless of the size of the population coming into your country the risk has always existed. Nicky Wagner is shaking her head. I have just one reference to make to you—Grey Lynn fruit fly. That came in before a levy; that came in with the amount of passengers we happened to have coming through at that time. Your risk exists around whether or not you have got proper processes in place to stop that from happening in the first place. If this bill is an admission that to date we have not had proper processes in place because we have not been able to fund them that is a different story. But I have not heard that admission from the Government yet. My argument is that it is not about scale; it is about whether or not you are properly resourcing your people to do the job. We have long had a concern on this side of the Chamber that we have not been properly resourcing our border control staff to carry out the functions we require of them otherwise why would we have had such a massive economic threat to our horticultural sector as we have seen in the past couple of months? We cannot afford something like the fruit fly. It is the Queensland fruit fly; I called it the Grey Lynn fruit fly. It is the Queensland fruit fly which has found a new cosy environment in Grey Lynn. People have recently asked me whether or not we have got rid of that problem. The answer is no. Things have gone very quiet. That is only because the fruit fly is in hibernation. It is absolutely still a risk to our economy as a whole and one that was a massive wake-up call. We should not be reliant solely on introducing at the last minute these kinds of measures as being the mechanism for ensuring we have proper border controls in biosecurity. We know there has been a loss of experience in the Ministry for Primary Industries. We know that that has been a problem across the board. It has been something that Labour has continually raised and we raise it again here tonight. The second issue I want to raise really is covered by Part 2 of the bill and that is the amount of auditing that is going to have to go on and the scrutiny over whether or not the levy is being recorded properly. Who is going to follow up on that? Is that another job? How much red tape and bureaucracy is being created by this bill? What will the costs of enforcement and that auditing be? I think it is a fine question to ask of the Government which purports to be a Government against red tape. It certainly introduces a lot of it. What is the cost of enforcing this bill? It is hard to know because of all the lack of detail but we certainly see that there are auditing requirements. Everyone is required to keep statements accounts and records. Who is going to enforce that? Those are some questions. I would love to hear answers from the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy if he would like to respond to me. Thank you.[Continuation line: SHAW]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - JAMES SHAW (Green)JAMES SHAW (Green): I would like to start by addressing some of the points raised by Craig Foss. He was saying that Labour is voting against $100 million of extra funding. This does seem to contradict the press release that was put out saying that the current spend at the border is about $100 million and that this new tax would raise about $100 million. Is he saying that in fact costs are going to inflate to $200 million and that this new tax covers $100 million of that? I am assuming that he misspoke as he did about a number of things during his speech and that this is just covering the additional $100 million that is currently being spent. Secondly related to that as I understand it the $4.7 million operating funding that is going to the Customs Service the $24.9 million over 4 years that is going to Biosecurity and the $2 million capital funding that is going to Biosecurity is on top of the $100 million that is currently being spent. Does that mean therefore that the $100 million revenue that is expected to be raised by this new tax will not actually cover the full costs? The current costs are about $100 million and then if we add that $30 million - odd that means that the spend will go up to just over $130 million and the tax is expected to raise $100 million. So I just wanted to clarify whether this new tax is expected to cover all expenses or just current expenses. Where is the additional funding coming from if it is not? Secondly I just wanted to gently remind the Labour Party and Annette King—she says that they will be voting with the Government on the bill tonight—that a few weeks back Labour voted with the Government on the MP remuneration legislation. This is a bill that contained a fairly complex piece of algebra that literally no one who voted for it understood and they completely took it on faith that it would do roughly what the Government said it would despite the Government not actually being able to provide any kind of information about what it was intended to do.[Continuation line: So this kind of thing it seems happens a fair bit]JAMES SHAWSo this kind of thing it seems happens a fair bit around here but thank you for the point. I wanted to speak particularly—given that we are taking this bill as one question—to clause 1 the title clause: “This Act is the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Act 2015.”  and just pick up a theme from earlier. We might want to consider some other options because the dictionary definition of a “tax” is a “compulsory payment to Government to raise revenue levied on income property or goods and services” and the service may include entering or leaving the country and getting your underwear patted down while you are doing it—depending on whether you see that as a service. Some other words that we might want to use here in addition to tax or levy tariff toll excise duty fee imposition impost exaction assessment tithe or payment—the point being I think that the argument about whether to call it a levy or a tax is frankly redundant. In broad category terms it is a tax and we should move on to whether we think this is of any substance. In terms of the argument about no new taxes and whether this is a broken promise and so on I think it is a fair one to have if the Government said going into an election that it would raise no new taxes and then it raised new taxes. Then you could argue that it won the election on false pretences along with things like running a surplus and so on. But the attacks on the Government for raising this additional form of revenue do buy into the narrative that a Government raising revenue to cover its costs is somehow a bad thing. Actually it is not all the time. There are times when we need to do this to cover our costs and as I said in an earlier speech when the Government cut the tax rate for high income earners it actually meant that revenue was going to be running below costs for many years to come when it could have actually been running a surplus ever since. So in terms of—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): James Shaw.JAMES SHAW: Thank you Mr Chair. I will not take too much of your time. I will just complete the thought on the narrative around whether taxes are good or bad or anything else. The reason we are supporting this one is that we feel it is actually a good one because it locates the cost with the users. It is transparent and it increases accountability because rather than being funded out of general taxation it means that the revenue can rise and fall along with passenger numbers. So the cost is directly related to the activity and it means that transparency around this is greater. So if we are going to be raising new taxes to us this looks like a good one so we will continue to support it. Process issues aside which are shocking—generally the Greens are against pushing things that are not urgent through the House under urgency and this does not seem in any way urgent—we are in favour of this bill. We have not seen any real substantial arguments as to why we should not pursue this course of action. But we do want some answers to those questions about whether this is $100 million of new funding or additional funding and then whether the new funding that was announced in those press releases is on top of that $100 million and if it is whether that means that this tax itself is not covering the full cost of border security the Customs Service and biosecurity. Thank you Mr Chair.[continuation line Richard Prosser]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I want to pick up where my colleague Mr Shaw has left off. I was not going to wade into the debate about whether this measure is a levy or a tax because actually I think it is irrelevant and because Labour members and others have gone into it in quite some detail. When you look at the various dictionaries online and otherwise it seems that one is the other and the other is the one. So what it is called does not actually matter. It is significant though if we look at the departmental disclosure statement at page 9. Part 4.2 about significant legislative features states: “Does this bill create or amend a power to impose a fee levy or charge in the nature of a tax?” and their answer is no. The explanation is that the levy is not proposed to be greater than cost recovery and there will be a clear relation to the costs of the functions performed. The funds collected will be held in a trust account to be used solely for funding the cost of the levied services. Given this officials consider the levy is not in the nature of a tax.” So whether it is regarded as a tax or a levy—and there is obviously some difference in the minds of the officials who drafted this statement—it raises a question that goes back to a theme that I have raised in earlier stages of this debate. When we say the funds collected will be held in a trust account if we by a little stretch presume that the consolidated account  for example is a trust account—because in a manner it it—to be used solely for the cost of the levied services one would presume or I guess one could be forgiven for presuming that the purpose of a Government raising tax at all or raising revenue at all through whatever means would be to fund the cost of levied services. In other words the things that the Government does it has to raise money for and I do not see that there is a difference in that regard between money being raised for a purpose specific to the Government and money being raised by a Government specific to a purpose. What it does get back to—and this is the point I have been making and the one that Mr Shaw picked up on as well—is whether the $100 million that this levy tax fee or whatever is intended to raise is intended to be additional to baseline funding for biosecurity as it currently exists or not. This is fundamental to our support or lack of it for this bill. If we are talking about $100 million extra dollars on top of what we currently spend on biosecurity we are all for that and that will swing us around. We will come in behind it and say good on you Minister. The Minister has made a point over his time as a Minister of saying that biosecurity is his No. 1 priority. We absolutely support him on that and in fairness I think he is genuine in that. He may struggle at times I think to extract a sufficient degree of priority out of his Cabinet colleagues for the primary sector because their focus may be on other areas but I think he is genuine in wanting to improve the level of biosecurity. We may disagree on the methodology by which that is achieved and the processes they intend to go through. Doubling the budget for biosecurity would make an enormous difference to whether or not New Zealand First could support this bill and I think it really does require some absolute clarity as to whether or not this levy—it is a new levy—is going to provide an additional stream of funding for biosecurity or whether it is going to replace the current stream of funding for biosecurity. Again I come back to the point the Minister of Customs made earlier when talking about cost recovery whereas Minister Foss and Mr McKelvie have talked about boosts. Either it is a boost or it is a cost recovery. It is one or the other. So either we are talking about another $100 million or the same $100 coming from somewhere else. That is really quite crucial.Hon Annette King: Extra.RICHARD PROSSER: I know yes that people have said it is extra and other people have said it is cost recovery. So it is one or the other. If we go back to the title of the bill I wonder whether it should be called the “Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Additional Levy Bill”. It would clarify it completely by saying whether this is additional funding or not. I also want to ask another question and I am certainly hoping that some Government members are going to rise and take calls in this stage of the debate. Perhaps they are just leaving it for the Minister or Ministers at the end. If this measure is simply cost recovery and we look at some of the perhaps fringe pathways through which people and goods and so forth come into New Zealand we know that about 95 percent of incoming passengers are airline passengers about 4 percent are cruise ship passengers and the other 1 percent are yachts private jets military personnel and so forth—and never mind that there are diplomatic visitors and so forth guests of the Government who we already know from prior Government statements will be exempt because it is not appropriate to charge guests of the Government money to come in. But if we are talking solely about cost recovery then I cannot see that it is feasible in any way to imagine that for $16 a person it warrants sending an inspector up to say Opua in the Bay of Islands to inspect the crew of a yacht coming in. It cannot materially physically be possible to adequately inspect a number of people coming in on a yacht and that yacht itself at $16 a head. So that in itself begs the question as whether the levy is going to be topped up from general Government funding if it is not sufficient for these sorts of things. If that is going to be the case is that going to be across the board can we please have some clarification from the Minister or from one of the Government members as to whether or not that is going to be the case. Thank you.[continuation line: Hon Nathan Guy]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries)Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): This is a great opportunity to take a call on this very important bill that we are debating this evening. Thank you very much for the contributions that I have heard this afternoon and this evening in the first and second readings and now in the Committee stage. It is interesting to put some balance into this because there has been quite a focus from the left about how this is going to really harm the tourism industry. I think they have not done their research well enough. It is interesting that some of the comments that I have read are that the tourism industry in 2013 indicated it was not opposed to a broader levy. This issue has been around for quite a period of time—in fact Labour even considered it when it was in Government. What is also interesting is that the Flight Centre Managing Director Chris Greive said: “So long as there are real benefits for our customers and the additional fees are spent on ensuring the customer experience is as best it can be through keeping border processes updated and investing in improvements then we would not see these new charges as a negative”. So I did not hear that from Annette King. I did not hear that. All I heard was rhetoric from Annette King. There is no balance in Labour’s argument this evening. What is also missing in its rhetoric are other public comments—other public comments that I have seen that Annette King might be interested in. The chairman of Kiwifruit Vine Health says it is both logical and sensible to implement a passenger surcharge that will go a long way in futureproofing the cost of New Zealand’s biosecurity system currently borne by New Zealand taxpayers. That was from Kiwifruit Vine Health chairman Peter Ombler. Annette King did not make any comments about that. I also want to quote the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand which thanked “the Government for its commitment to responding to the changes which are altering New Zealand’s biosecurity risk profile … DCANZ is encouraging the public to see this levy within the bigger picture of biosecurity for New Zealand … Biosecurity is not just concern for primary industry; the introduction didymo ‘rock snot’ has permanently altered many waterways and affected recreation activities.” So it is interesting that the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand is straightaway not only talking about biosecurity but moving into biodiversity and the fact that if we do not strengthen our borders with an increase of volume and risk then our tourism industry is going to be affected. Annette King has not acknowledge that in 2001 when the UK had foot-and-mouth disease it affected their tourism industry by about NZ$15 billion. What is also interesting are other comments. I want to bring to the Committee’s attention Horticulture New Zealand. What the Horticulture New Zealand president said was: “The good thing about this levy is that as the number of visitors increases so will the revenue it generates to cover the increased cost of processing passengers and the risk they represent”. The Horticulture New Zealand president goes on to say is that the suggested levy “is still a long way off the $58 charged by Australia a country with similar biosecurity requirements to our own.” So on one hand we have the primary industries saying good on the Government for bringing this in—and actually one of them saying it should be even higher. We also have a departmental disclosure statement on the Table tonight which some members have referred to that says that the impacts are going to be low on visitors. Yes we have got a regulatory impact statement that is going to go out with the discussion document and that will answer Annette King’s questions. That document we propose to be out in June. Also Annette King has raised—I am not sure whether it is mythical or not—this 2003 agreement. I have asked my officials to have a look and see what they can find on this agreement. They cannot actually find anything official about this agreement. What I would say is that time has moved on from 2003. Our visitor numbers are growing. Our risk profile is also increasing. This is about fairness. This is about 2015. This is about passenger numbers forecast to grow at 4 percent a year for the next 6 years. This is about focusing on risk passengers. Also can I clear up another point that has been made—Hon Annette King: And they bring nothing to New Zealand. No benefit to New Zealand—$10 billion.Hon NATHAN GUY: If Annette King would give me a moment I will try to clear it up for her. She might be interested. So this is about a levy. Over the next 3 years or so it is going to generate about $100 million to $105 million for biosecurity run by the Ministry for Primary Industries and customs. Currently that is funded by the taxpayer. We believe it is fairer that those who are utilising those services—55 percent of those are foreigners—should pay for the use of those services. As our volumes increase by what I have said—estimated to be 4 percent maybe 5 percent a year looking out—that money will come in with that passenger. So to put it another way as more people come into New Zealand from overseas the funding will follow them. That means that our services will be able to continually improve and be bolstered. Can I clear up another point for Mr Shaw who has made I think a very good contribution to the debate this afternoon and this evening. Mr Shaw gets it. He gets it. He realises that this levy is about strengthening the biosecurity system. Mr Shaw gets it because he knows that if we have a biosecurity incursion it affects our tourism industry. Mr Shaw also gets the fact that it could have an impact on biodiversity. Mr Shaw has raised another comment that I want to clarify and that is about the money that has been allocated in Budget 2015 through customs and the Ministry for Primary Industries which equals about $30 million. That is going to be focused in the next 4 years on further strengthening the biosecurity and customs systems. That is extra money that I have been able to get out of the Government from the taxpayer to further strengthen the biosecurity system. That is going to be focused on more detector dogs more X-ray machines more audits of our import health standards and more visits to offshore countries where we bring produce and trade from to check that they are following and adhering to the import health standards. So this is more money. This is a significant investment in the biosecurity system. My challenge to New Zealand First which wants to run around the regions of New Zealand and say that it is the regional party is to get on board with this legislation—get on board and support it. The primary industries Mr Prosser are backing this. The primary industries realise that more needs to be done. They realise that this is about fairness. So as volumes grow the money will increase. That means more of a focus on the biosecurity passenger system. The other important thing in this debate is to realise that this money goes into a trust account—a memorandum account. It must be spent—it must be spent—through the Ministry for Primary Industries biosecurity and customs on the passenger pathway. That is an important point to make this evening in the debate. So in conclusion I support this bill. It is about fairness. It is about a growing volume of passengers coming across our border. It is about a risk profile that is changing. It is about the Ministry for Primary Industries and customs being more responsive. It is about protecting our primary industries. That actually by the way enhances tourism because a lot of tourists come to New Zealand to enjoy our biodiversity to enjoy the great outdoors to enjoy what New Zealand has to offer.[Continuation line: Kelvin Davis]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau)KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to thank the Minister for that because we do get it. We do get that this is about our biosecurity about protecting our agricultural interests. But there are a few things that we do not get. One of the things we do not get is why there were cuts to biosecurity 4 5 years ago why 54 biosecurity staff members were cut 4 or 5 years ago. This tax is just a replacement. And it is a tax and let me tell you why I know it is a tax aside from the Oxford Dictionary saying a tax is a levy and a levy is a tax and the Collins dictionary. I also checked the Māori dictionary and the Māori dictionary says that a levy is a tax and if we Māori say it then it must be true. So that is what we do not understand is why there were cuts 5 years ago and now this is happening all of a sudden and it is really important that we get more tax to replace those services that were lost. I have a few questions and they stem from some of the comments made from the National Party members during the second reading. One was from Ian McKelvie . He said this will not put an impost on those who can afford to pay it. I am not sure what that means. If people cannot afford to pay it then of course it is going to be an impost. So I would like the National Party to explain exactly what that was meant to mean. Another question I have is how much this will cost to administer. If it is going to cost $6 to fly out of New Zealand how much of that $6 is actually going to go into administration? If I can just go to the Police vetting bill that the Law and Order Committee is talking about—one of the concerns of submitters there for the $7 fee for police vetting is that most of that $7 is actually going to be used to administer the fee. That is a question I have for the Minister. Exactly how much of that $6 fee to go out of New Zealand is going to be used up in administration? If the biosecurity threat comes from tourists coming into New Zealand then why do you not just exempt New Zealanders flying out? New Zealanders flying out of New Zealand do not pose a biosecurity threat to New Zealand. Sure when they come back in—I can understand that they may bring in an apple or something such as my wife did when she came back from Australia one day and it cost us $400. But I also have got a few questions based around Section 140AB—Contents of border processing levy order . It is around the word “may”. It says: “A levy order under section 140AA may” —it may so it is not saying it will. It is just saying it may “prescribe different rates of levy” —or it may not—“on any differential basis for different persons or different classes or persons:” . That is really unclear first of all that it says “may” and not “will” or “should” or “must”—it says it may. But what is a different class of person? I am really not quite sure what that means and I would like the Minister to explain that. Or for different persons—why would one person be prescribed different rates over the other? It says it may “(b) prescribe a maximum rate or maximum rates of levy:” —so may or may not? That is still unclear. It says it may “(g) provide subject to such conditions as may be prescribed for extensions of time for the payment of levy:” . Will there be extensions of time for the payment of this levy or not? What is going to happen to people if they need to have an extension of time? That is unclear. It may “(h) provide for the payment of additional or increased levy in the event of late payment or non-payment:” . So will there be increased levies if there is non-payment of the levy or the tax? It may “(i) provide for circumstances in which levy paid may be refunded:” . What are those circumstances that the levy may be refunded? We have got no idea. It is very unclear as to what the circumstances may be that the levy would be refunded and to whom and under what conditions. It would be good for the Minister to explain that to the Chamber . And it may “(j) require that levy funds payable be held on trust in separate accounts.” It may require that levy funds payable be held on trust in separate accounts. I would like to know the answers to those questions. I would like to have those issues cleared up. This word “may” or “must”: it says “may” in the legislation; should it be “must” or not? So there are just a few questions just to add to the debate that I would like the Minister to clarify for the House. Kia ora .[Continuation line: Rino Tirikatene]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga)RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I would just like to add further comments in addition to Mr Davis’  because the amendments to the Biosecurity Act grant a very wide and broad discretion on the Minister to set the levy the rate and the conditions around that levy. It is a very very broad discretion and there is no legislative guidance around considerations that he must take into account. At the end of the day the Minister can effectively set whatever he wants in terms of the rate. There is no control on that discretion and that is why it is really dangerous imposing a tax through legislation under urgency in these situations. As an example I would just like to seek the Minister’s clarification around—as part of his discretion it says here in clause 5 that the Minister must consult persons who he believes are representative of interests likely to be affected substantially by the levy order. That is completely up to the Minister who he believes has interests that are substantially affected. I am just wondering if the Minister could advise as to which groups would be substantially affected because in my mind a major group that will be substantially affected will be inbound visitors—tourists. How is the Minister to consult with them? Is he going to stand at the airport in the arrivals lounge and have a survey or have a chat have a cordial? Because they will be substantially affected by this. It is very unclear. But it is a very very broad discretion that is granted to the Minister. This is a tax. It is not good practice for this Parliament to be granting broad power to a Minister to be able to impose these rates and these conditions really as he sees fit. I would like to pose to the Minister how he intends to consult these substantially affected groups. Who are these substantially affected groups? How does he intend to do that? I know that they have already talked about advising on the rates and the levies. It is true that the actual end number is unknown. We do not know the cost that will be imposed on travellers. There has been talk about $16 $22 $32 but you must also add to that other departure taxes that are also payable by travellers. There are a range of costs that are all factored in a range of taxes that need to be considered. That is why there is just such a broad discretion given to the Minister that it is really beyond the scope. I am also really unsure about some of the drafting in the bill and the consequences of some of the provisions. Because if I look at Part 2  there is the provision here where you have got two methods by which the Crown can currently recover the processing costs. There is the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Act  and that legislation I believe allows the Crown to collect the cost to the Crown of setting up biosecurity customs and other services including the services which are envisaged by this bill under that from the airport companies. The Crown can collect the cost there from the airport companies. It is also talking about collecting the same costs from travellers. I know that they are wanting to do an exclusion and say that airports that currently under the former Act will be excluded from this piece of legislation.[Continuation line: But it will lead to confusion]RINO TIRIKATENEIt will lead to confusion. The easiest way I can think about it is this. Hypothetically a person departs from Christchurch International Airport . Christchurch International Airport pays the Crown the costs for recovering and doing the biosecurity screening under the Airport (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Act  and it is subject to that Act. So what does that mean? Does that mean that every traveller who is leaving from Christchurch will not pay the travel tax? If that is the case how will you administer that? How will you be able to administer all the differential rates that will apply for the two different regimes that will be at play? In one case you will have an airport company paying to the Crown the costs to process and in this present case you will have the traveller paying the Crown the cost for them to be processed. So there are real practical issues that I see arising out of the application of this legislation and they are why this legislation should be referred to select committee and it should be subject to greater scrutiny from all the relevant parties that will be interacting with this legislation. As we have heard the Minister has not consulted with the tourism industry the airline industry. Of course you are going to have the primary industries sector clapping its hands at this legislation. Who would not? This is really good for biosecurity and we all want strong robust biosecurity systems—absolutely. Of course they would say that but it misses the point in terms of there being no regulatory impact statement. I see real practical issues here that could pose some real difficulties in the application of this law. I would just like to ask the Minister how he intends to deal with all of these matters. Could I ask this: what are the chances of bringing this legislation to some sort of select committee so that some proper scrutiny and amendments could be made? Because what I do not want to see is the passage of this legislation and then as has occurred with some Crown minerals legislation just recently passed—here we were at Parliament and the Government was back 3 weeks later saying oh we need to make some amendments to it. That is a very real possibility just on my cursory glance of the legislation as it stands at the moment. That is a plea that I would make to the Minister. Let us refer this legislation to some sort of select committee review process so we can really look closely at it. Otherwise once it is passed into law what will we have to do again? We will have to come back in a few weeks’ time and put through some more legislation to try to fix it up. That is a waste of Parliament’s time and it is not good lawmaking .[Continuation line: Steffan Browning]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - STEFFAN BROWNING (Green)STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Earlier we heard from the Minister for Small Business and Minister of Statistics  and he is also the Associate Minister of Immigration and the Associate Minister of Transport  so he should know about this stuff. He was very very adamant and strident and yelling across the Chamber that this was $100 million more for biosecurity. I agreed with Richard Prosser when he said would that not be fantastic. On top of the Budget Minister you said there would be about $25 million of new money but the Hon Craig Foss says there will be $100 million of new money. You have gone some way to try to tidy that for him I think because I think he has got it wrong. I would love to hear that there is $100 million on top of what was being spent in the last budgetary year. You can nod or shake or whatever. Is there $100 million more on top of past spending on biosecurity? I do not think there is is there? No answer. Well I hope I will get an answer. Just a simple question: is there $100 million—as the Hon Craig Foss said and insisted on multiple times—over and above what we have had? The other question I have because any more money for biosecurity is good money is: why is there a drop for business for their importation for their biosecurity system entry levy? It is not big but there is a drop. Previously if I look up the Customs Service at the moment it is $17.63 and it is just going down either to $13.15 per importation or $17.37. It is not a big drop for that part—the $17.37—but it is for the $13.15. The question as well is comparison. So I go to Aussie soon and when I come back I will have a suitcase or whatever. These guys are bringing in how many containers for that? One container 20 containers or whatever—I know there are some other fees for them; they are not big either. So is the Minister going to be able to go and say we have looked out for you in business we have actually dropped your fee and we have put it on to the tourists coming in? We are supporting a bill that is right for the tourists but I do not think there should be any reduction anywhere in terms of levies and biosecurity so I would be very keen to see that tidied up or clarified. But it is there; I have got it on what has gone through in the Order in Council and what the current fees are. I am also interested in as we have heard from others the exemptions. What about the exemptions? Who is going to be exempted? Who why when what what for certain classes of persons—what are they? Leaving that I hope for some clarification around that. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that there was going to be some money specifically around import health standards. We have got the imported pork now and 52 percent of pork that is consumed in New Zealand is imported and we know that the pork industry because the Biosecurity Act is wonting does not add precaution in a meaningful way and it lost through multiple courts and lost and spent millions in the process of trying to defend its sector from a slack import health standard. They are particular questions I would like answered. It is good that there is more money going to the import health standard. It did not seem a hang of a lot but there is some. We really do need answers to why businesses that are importing potentially multiple containers are going to have a levy that is very very similar to an individual with a suitcase. I want that individual with a suitcase to have 100 percent x-rays and it looks like you are doing that and you are headed that way. I want to see more dogs coming in. I want to see more money. So are we going to have $100 million of new money on top of old money or is it that $25 million to $30 million - ish of new money only on the past Budget. Thank you.[PV on Part 1—Ayes 72 Noes 33]Part 1 agreed to.[Continuation line: PV on Ministers Amendment to clause 12]The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Clause 12 be agreed to:In clause 12 new section 288H(2) (page 8) delete “or declaration”In clause 12 new section 288H(3) (pages 8 and 9) delete “or declaration” in each place[PV on Minister’s amendment—Ayes 84 Noes 21]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.[PV on Minister’s amendment—Ayes 84 Noes 21]A party vote was called for on the question That Clause 1 be agreed to.[PV on Minister’s amendment—Ayes 84 Noes 21]A party vote was called for on the question That Clause 2 be agreed to.[PV on Minister’s amendment—Ayes 84 Noes 21]Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy BillSpeech - STEFFAN BROWNING (Green)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will point out that it is unusual that the party that is declared the winner of a vote to ask for a party vote on the question but it is not outside the rules. There is one final question and that is for the Minister to move.The Committee divided the bill into the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) divided into Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)| Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2)|pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 79.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.[Continuation line: 3R of legislation arising from Border Processing etc Bill.Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Third ReadingsHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I move That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. We have had a very robust debate this afternoon and this evening and I thank the contribution from the House. Primary sector leaders as I have mentioned this afternoon and this evening in the House are welcoming it and some are even calling for a higher levy similar to Australia’s. I know that some tourism commentators are saying it will reduce the actual tourist numbers coming into New Zealand but I doubt that their concerns will actually materialise into too much when we look at those forward projections of tourism growing at about 3 to 4 percent a year potentially more over the next 4 to 6 years. These tourists who come to New Zealand come to enjoy in part the great outdoors. Our biodiversity relies on a very strong biosecurity system to avoid pests and diseases entering New Zealand. We have had numerous examples where they have entered and didymo of course is one that is pretty topical and that has affected many rivers in New Zealand. Of course that does not go down well with our clean green image that we like to promote our country on. The fundamental principle behind the introduction of the border clearance levy is that it is fairer that travellers who generate the need for these border clearance services contribute to the cost of these activities. Over half of the cost of the levy will fall on foreign tourists which the Government feels is appropriate. The levy will put border services on a sustainable footing by allowing funding to increase as passengers rise. This is fairer. It is more responsive to managing the risk at the border and our officials at the border will continue to provide quality services. There is still much to do before we implement this on 1 January 2016: a public consultation period submissions to be analysed deciding on how the levy is to be collected what the final rate will be then striking a levy order and beginning to educate travellers before we move into 1 January next year. In summary I am very proud of this legislation. I am very proud of the contribution that the National Government has made in Budget 2015 to strengthening biosecurity and also the contribution that has been made from customs as well in Budget 2015. The levy makes sense. It is about fairness and also importantly it is about a contribution for everyone who wants to be involved in biosecurity to get on board and engage in the biosecurity 2020-25 strategy which is out there soon and is to be widely consulted on. So there is a lot happening in this space and that is why it will continue to be my No. 1 priority as Minister. I commend this legislation to the House.[Continuation line: Rino Tirikatene]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga)RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to speak in the final readings of this legislation which has now been divided. We are disappointed on this side of the House because these bills impose a tax and that is very clear. It has been established throughout the debate. It has been acknowledged by members on the other side—two members on the other side. This is the imposition of a tax—a new tax—and we are doing it under urgency. We are doing it in a rushed manner with no public consultation no scrutiny no engagement with affected parties and there is no reason for that because the Minister has just acknowledged that he is about to conduct public consultation on what the levy fee should be and all the conditions that he might impose around it. Ultimately it will be his decision what he recommends what will be actually charged on travellers but why go through this process in such a rushed manner now when he is already intending to go through a consultation process virtually immediately? I think it is just all around the wrong way. It is poor governance from this Government—sorry it has been a very long day. It is poor from this Government and yet again it is another broken promise as we have established. And it has been acknowledged on both sides of this House that this is a tax. The Government promised no new taxes and it has flip-flipped on that and here we are.[Continuation line: Here it is imposing a tax that will hurt]RINO TIRIKATENEHere they are imposing a tax that will hurt ordinary travellers. Every Kiwi who wants to travel—who wants to leave our fine shores and go on a holiday and go and visit loved ones—will all be struck with this charge. Likewise our important tourism industry—all our international visitors who bring a huge contribution to our country—will face an additional charge. We do not really know the impacts but we know that in other jurisdictions there is a reduction in air traffic numbers and the like through the imposition of such levies. That is why our tourism industry has fought it so hard. On the flipside of course we want strong biosecurity systems. That is a given given the nature of our economy and our reliance on the primary sector. It is no surprise then that the primary sector industries are all applauding this tax. They are not having to foot the bill; travellers will foot the bill. But it need not be the case because the services that have been provided through biosecurity screening and the like have always been supplied by the Government through the taxpayers as a whole. That should continue to be the case. Unfortunately we are seeing this arrogant Government that is pushing ahead imposing a tax breaking the promises that it has made to the nation. We are also concerned about the impact and the application of it. It is hastily drafted. We do not really know whether it will do everything that it is intended to do. There could be unintended consequences—it has been rushed through that fast. We do not really want to be back here in a few weeks’ time trying to fix it up by putting through another piece of legislation. But that is what happens when you do things under urgency. Lastly I want to take Minister Wagner up on her offer around the Joint Border Management System.Hon Nicky Wagner: Ah! Good. I’ll take you for a visit. We’ll go and have a look.RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes yes—indeed. The Joint Border Management System—the $100 million lemon. We are still waiting to see the full functionality of that IT project. We are still waiting to see it. The due dates keep getting pushed out. The price tag keeps going up and up and up and we do not know the full extent of the functionality. We do not really know what benefits it is actually providing to the Ministry of Primary Industries. How does it help biosecurity screening for passengers? What happens? Yes it is great that there are 2 million entries into a trade single window but what happens beyond that? Where is all the sophisticated risk and intelligence screening? That was the core purpose of the Joint Border Management System. That is what it was intended to do. Then to also retire the legacy systems—those old 20-year-plus computer systems that are still chugging away. Our whole primary industries are resting on these old 20-year-old IT systems which are still having to carry the load because we do not know what the Joint Border Management System has produced. And why do we not know—because it is shrouded in secrecy. The Minister will not tell us what is going on. The Minister has been in dispute with IBM. They have had to renegotiate the contract they have had to reset the milestones they have had to reprice everything they have had to go cap in hand asking for more money and we still do not know what they have delivered. So Minister Wagner I would really like to take up that opportunity to visit because I want to know what the Joint Border Management System is what has actually been delivered what is behind the velvet curtain and is it actually doing what it is intended to do and when we have paid an investment of over $100 million into it. By all accounts it is just another Novopay that you want to keep under a shroud of secrecy to hide behind lawyers and the like and dress up with a whole lot of gobbledegook technology language. We want to know exactly what we will get for that $100 million-plus investment whether it will actually be delivered on the due date or keep getting pushed out and whether the price tag will keep expanding. Those are my concluding remarks. We do oppose this bill. We oppose the imposition of this tax. We oppose the fact that this Government has yet again misled the country and gone against the undertakings that they have given to the public and now travellers from far and wide and anyone who wants to go on a trip will soon be facing another hefty increase to their travel costs. That is a very unfortunate circumstance. Thank you.[Continuation line: Nicky Wagner]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs)Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): It is with enormous pleasure that I rise to support these levies under the bills arising from the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the questions from the member Rino Tirikatene and say yes I am very happy take you to see the Joint Border Management System to see how successful it is and how well it is working. At the same time I am very happy to offer you a complimentary full body search if you would like to take that up. New Zealanders have told us that they want a safe border. This levy will cover the costs of managing our border efficiently and well. It will cover the costs and only the costs of managing our borders. It is to protect us against illegal travellers and the illegal goods that they carry with them—drugs firearms or objectionable material. It is to protect us against biosecurity risks—things like fruit fly and didymo and of course the biggest threat of all to our economy foot and mouth disease. I think it is really interesting and I would like to point out to Mr Prosser that yes good biosecurity will protect our agricultural industries but it also protects our tourism industry. As we have heard when they had the foot and mouth outbreak in the UK it cost nearly £8 billion—which is about $15 million New Zealand dollars—in terms of travel and tourism costs. I do want to add to the discussion of the Hon Nathan Guy in terms of the regions. The regions are the places that provide our agricultural exports. The regions often have the people who have our tourism. So if we want to look after our regions we need to impose this levy at the border. I just want to say: let us forget about the semantics—tax or levy levy or tax. Forget about the semantics—this payment is all about cost recovery and only cost recovery at the border. And it is about choice remembering that only 42 percent of the people who go across our borders are New Zealanders. Every traveller will have to pay to go across the border. Everybody will have to pay the levy but they will only pay it if they choose to use our border services—only if they choose to use the services. Another question that Mr Prosser was asking me was how we are going to collect this money. The key issue here and it does reflect on what the member Jacinda Ardern was talking about is to make the collection of this levy as simple and as easy as possible. To do that we are proposing to use existing payment systems. The airlines would pay a monthly lump-sum payment to the Civil Aviation Authority and the cruise ship operators would pay customs. These funds would then be allocated to customs and the Ministry of Primary Industries. For other customers such as the people who travel on private yachts or aircraft the levy will be collected directly from them as they enter and depart from New Zealand. Again the member Steffan Browning was concerned about the cost of going to manage the border for these private yachts. We do that now. We make sure that every yacht is processed correctly at the border.Continuation line: Finally for Mr Shaw]Hon NICKY WAGNERFinally for Mr Shaw I do not think he needs to be concerned about how we manage the intelligence at the border. There will be no changes to our normal custom procedures. We have to have a face-to-face check against documentation and that also reflects on why there is a cost going in and going out. Whereas only arrivals have to do biosecurity whether people are going in or out we have to have a face-to-face check at the border. So finally just to recap on why this levy is good for New Zealand and New Zealanders it is flexible it is future-proofed. As traveller numbers increase so will the levy increase and interestingly enough that is not just about numbers. As these numbers are increasing there is a greater diversity of types of travellers who come across our borders there is greater complexity at the border and those funds will gather so that we have the resources to manage that. We certainly want to make sure that our borders are efficient and effective. We do not want to see the sort of congestion that you might see in Los Angeles or Miami. It is fairer. This levy is fairer because it applies to the people who use the services and it applies to the people who provide the risk for us. Just like the system that we have for goods travellers will pay their way to get through the border. Finally it is fit for purpose. It is international best practice to have a levy at the border. The same principle is used right around the world. The only difference is that our levy will be more cost effective—about $20 whereas Australia is at least double that the UK is over five times that and there is also Canada and the US. At the moment New Zealanders are in a lose-lose situation. They pay all the costs at our border for international visitors and then have to go and pay the costs at other people’s borders—lose-lose. So basically I really support this bill. It is good for New Zealand and good for New Zealanders. Thank you.[Continuation line: Rurawhe]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru)ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the bills arising from the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill because I want to put my point of view to the general public about what this is really about. This is actually really about the Government collecting more tax money because it cannot balance the books. That is what this is really about and it is my pleasure to tell the public that. On this side of the House we are very serious about biosecurity and about border security—so much so that through 9 years of our Labour Government the last Labour Government not once did we put in an arrival tax or a departure tax. Why was that? We did not need to because we know how to run the economy. We know how to make a surplus. These bills are about collecting more money so that the National Government can scrape and crawl up to a minor surplus next year. It promised it this year and has failed. It has failed seven times to deliver a surplus and that is what this legislation is really about. We have heard from the previous speaker Nicky Wagner that New Zealanders are in a lose-lose situation. Well sorry Minister but you cannot have it both ways. Here are some facts: international visitors spent $10.3 billion last year in the New Zealand economy including $700 million in GST. Well when we were the Government we managed the whole economy and paid for border security and biosecurity through the taxes like the $700 million that had been collected through GST. The fact of the matter is that the Government is unable to do that and it should fess up that border levy is a tax. Can I also mention about the lack of detail around exactly how much is going to be charged? We are hearing figures like “about $6” and “around $16”. This paper here says it will be around $36 for a return journey and it says that is lower than Australia’s but we do not know that for a fact. James Shaw in his contribution criticised the Labour Party for voting for a bill that actually had the formula within it. Well the formula for this for the benefit of that member is not in here and we do not know it and they are voting for it. How can that be right? We need to have clarity around exactly how much people are going to be charged at the border to come into our country. You know that is kind of fundamental. The Government has got the process round the wrong order. It is round the wrong order. You do the legislation after the consultation not before. You know give the public the opportunity to be consulted on all parts of these bill not just a little bit not just a bit here and agree that we are going to pass this bill and we will let you know the detail later—trust us we know what we are doing. Well if the public were to trust you then you would not have cut the KiwiSaver eight times—and we have been through that legislation today. I suspect that there is probably going to be a statutory amendment bill coming up because that is what happens when you rush legislation through. People are not consulted especially when they are told as we see in the sign my colleague held up there are no new taxes. Well you know when it looks like a tax sounds like a tax guess what—it is a tax. It is a tax and so much so that members opposite got a little bit confused and started referring to it as a tax. And they are right. That is exactly what it is. I take this call to speak out against it and I disagree with—Alastair Scott: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I anticipate the point of order. Yes the sign should be removed.Alastair Scott: I am sorry to interrupt but my understanding is that the speaker can use—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have dealt with the point of order. I have anticipated your point of order.ADRIAN RURAWHE: So finally I would just like to say we oppose this bill for all of those reasons and I think that once again the Government has got in wrong. Thank you.[Continuation line: McKelvie]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): The Hurricanes are dominant the New Zealand cricketers are dominant and the National Party and its allies have been dominant for the last 3 days. I have much pleasure in commending this very pragmatic piece of legislation to the House.[Continuation line: BROWNING]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - STEFFAN BROWNING (Green)STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I am not going to be that fast. I am pleased to be speaking to this bill the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill . It is very good to see tourists paying their way towards biosecurity. I am disappointed that we are not having $100 million in new money on top of old spending—very disappointed with that. There has been a considerable number of incursions. There are continuous incursions—30 to 40 a year we hear—and each one of them could cost our primary industries which are the backbone of this economy and which will remain the backbone of this economy for a very long time probably for ever . We need to be putting this extra money in. It needs to be extra money. However getting a move on and getting further contribution is excellent.[Continuation line: What we really need though is the Government—that front bench—that]STEFFAN BROWNINGWhat we really need though is the Government that front bench not holding back a real increase in spending on biosecurity. We need that. We need it very very urgently so that we can speed up incursion fix-ups and repairs when things do get in but better still increase those inspections to six sided on the containers to get business paying its fair share and increase it on business as well not just on tourists coming in and out. I think the noise on the side suggests that there was an imminent increase in their excise tax but there is no imminent increase in the excise tax. The people barracking from the left side of the House can think that they will get their drink in due course and very soon. So we will support this bill. We would love to see a lot more money going into biosecurity. Thank you.[continuation line: Richard Prosser]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am disappointed. I am disappointed because at the outset of this process I really wanted to be able to support this legislation arising from the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. I really did. I genuinely did. We have got to the end of it and I cannot. My colleague Mr Browning put his finger on the reason and put it quite succinctly as to why. It comes down to whether or not this is actually additional money. It turns out that it is not. If it was if we were talking another $100 million of extra money on top of what we currently spend on border protection we would all be in favour of it. I asked several times through the course of the stages of this debate for a straight out confirmation or otherwise from the Ministers involved as to whether or not this was additional funding. I did not get a yes. We got some fudge and some smoke and some mirrors and a lot of indication that actually all we are doing is shifting the funding stream from one place to another. On the face of it yes it is about fairness. We agree that it is all about fairness. It is fair that those who pose the risk should pay for the risk. We do not actually have an issue with incoming passengers paying a biosecurity levy if that was what it was or tax—call it what you want. And do you know what? I do not believe that “Joe Public” international traveller would care all that much about paying $16 to come here either. I do not think they would notice frankly on top of several thousand money units from wherever you are coming from in the world to buy a ticket to come to New Zealand which is as far away from anywhere as you can get. Another 16 bucks is neither nor there. It is embedded in the ticket and they will not notice. That itself is not the issue; the issue is whether that $16 which was going to conglomerate and become 100 million bucks is going to be extra for biosecurity or not. We have heard that Kiwibright Kiwifruit Vine Health in New Zealand the dairy companies—all these companies are fully in favour of it. And I do not blame them. I do not blame them. I think they are supporting this because they believe they are getting another $100 million of extra funding and actually they are not. Actually all they are getting is some travellers paying what they used to pay out of tax. That in itself may be enough of an enticement for them to support this. They might think: “Well OK here’s 100 million bucks or whatever it is that the country spends on biosecurity coming out of the travellers’ pockets not out of my pocket as a primary sector business person.” That might be enough to make them happy but actually I think they are excited about this because they think: “Wow! All of a sudden we are going to get the extra funding for biosecurity that we have needed and wanted for a long time.” And I think they are going to be sorely disappointed when they find out that actually it is the same amount of money; it is just coming from a different source. I could be wrong. I will say this now. If we arrive at this point in the cycle next year when we have the Budget and we look at the figures as they have been allocated and as they have been spent and we look at the spend on biosecurity and we look at this levy and the money that has come in from it since then or the year after however long it takes however long it takes to get there and we discover that here is the amount of money that we were spending and here is the amount of money that we have spent and all of a sudden there is this massive increase I will eat a big slice of humble pie. But I do not think I am going to be eating that slice of humble pie because I do not think we are going to find—David Bennett: You’d rather have the whole pie.RICHARD PROSSER: Oh here we go. Mr Bennett. It must be getting late. It is approaching the witching hour and the bats are out in the belfry. I am not going to be eating that slice of humble pie because that extra money is not going to be spent. The Minister talked about New Zealand First’s getting in behind the regions. Well we are in behind the regions and part of us being in behind the regions is me standing here explaining to the regions that actually this thing that you are being sold as a big increase as a big massive new pot of money is not that at all. All it is is that it is being taken from here instead of being taken from there. It is the same amount of money. We are not going to get the 100 percent inspection of all passengers all luggage all mail and all freight. We are not going to get the inspection—Hon Nicky Wagner: Dogs sniffing away.RICHARD PROSSER: Oh we are getting some more sniffer dogs but we lost a whole bunch of sniffer dogs in just the last couple of years so perhaps we are getting back up to where we had just an insufficient number of sniffer dogs instead of a massively insufficient number of sniffer dogs. We are not going to get all our shipping containers inspected. Arguably you could say that the number of shipping containers and freight coming into the country provides a far greater biosecurity risk than passengers coming in on cruise ships and aeroplanes. But as it stands about one in four shipping containers gets inspected and after this levy is imposed about one in four shipping containers will get inspected. So those risks will carry on coming in. They will carry on coming in. There is the issue of urgency which has meant that we have not been able to delve into this matter as closely as we have needed to. There will be a process of consultation from here on in and we will design this levy and that will be all well and good. But actually it should have happened beforehand. We have been through that. That is another aside. The outgoing levy—again this comes back to the issue as to whether this is new money or whether it is just a different source. When the Minister of Customs says that it is going to support customs activities for people leaving the country well that is fine but she also talks about cost recovery. So there is some money that has been coming in out of general taxation to run the Customs Service so that you can walk out through the border and get your passport stamped or have the machine read it and now you are going to be paying $6 for that. That dosh that was being spent by the Government on that is not coming from that any more; it is going to come from the levy but actually nothing changes. There is no additional funding going into it.Stuart Smith: Would you say that again.RICHARD PROSSER: There is no additional funding in it.Stuart Smith: No the whole thing.RICHARD PROSSER: The whole thing from the start? You will be able to watch it later on on In The House Mr Smith. I am going to wrap up by saying that I am genuinely disappointed because as I say we went into this process really with the hope that we were going to be able to support this bill really hoping that we were going to discover that Kaloo Kalay it is Christmas; we are getting an extra $100 million for biosecurity. But actually we are not. All we are doing is changing where it is coming from from one place to another place. Biosecurity is going to be the same. We are not going to get extra boots on the ground. We are not going to get the 100 percent inspection that we need. We are still going to be at risk. The incursions are still going to be coming in. We are still going to be faced with things like fruit fly. Foot and mouth ain’t going to go away.Ron Mark: Border Patrol.RICHARD PROSSER: Yes as Mr Mark says you just need to have watched Border Patrol and see where the risks are. This is not the silver bullet. I would go so far as to say that it is disingenuous. If the Minister had come out if any of the Ministers had come out and said: “Yes we absolutely guarantee that this is $100 million of extra money not just money coming from one place instead of another place.” we would have been able to support it. But it is not. It is smoke and mirrors. We cannot support this bill.[continuation line: Stuart Smith]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura)STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): With great pleasure I commend this legislation arising from the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill to the House.[continuation line: James Shaw]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - JAMES SHAW (Green)JAMES SHAW (Green): I am pleased to be able to stand and deliver my 23rd and final speech of this urgency session. I would like to start by saying to the Government that if you want to introduce on matters that are frankly not urgent then you can sit here and listen to it. You can sit here and we will spin this out. This is punishment for introducing all of those bills none of which were urgent none of which had to be introduced under urgency. So you can just sit here and listen. It is regrettable that this legislation has been brought in under urgency with no ability to invite submissions. I completely agree with the Labour Party on that point and the Green Party has consistently fought against the use of urgency for things that are not urgent. We have heard comments both for and against the legislation from various businesses and industry associations but not within the normal boundaries of the proper legislative process and that is unfortunate. I have been in business for quite a long time and frankly I never met a business that did not like the Government paying for its costs.[continuation line: I do not want to be flippant with people’s]JAMES SHAWI do not want to be flippant with people’s concerns but when you look at the international comparisons and you consider that the level of this new passenger tax will be under 1 percent of the cost of travel on balance those concerns seem to be unfounded. This is a good way to raise revenue to cover this cost. It is transparent it increases accountability for the use of that money and it directly ties revenue and costs to each other. It internalises a cost of the industry that had previously been externalised to the New Zealand taxpayer. Part of the good news about this is that somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of the revenue here will be paid for by foreign visitors. So you can actually see this as a new form of foreign exchange earnings. The level of the new passenger tax is well below the international average. It creates a mechanism that we can use in the future for funding the Department of Conservation estate or to help out local authorities that currently carry a lot of the cost of infrastructure or marketing for tourism. The Greens have consistently been calling for more money for better biosecurity for many many years and we have been calling for new revenue streams to pay for it. So the Greens are very happy that National has listened to us after all of this time and we are very happy to support National’s new passenger tax. Thank you.[Continuation line: Iain Lees-Galloway]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North)IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I was expecting another National Party MP to get up and tell us why this was such a wonderful bill but they have given up. They have completely given up. We have exhausted them and they have realised that they have got nothing positive left to add to the debate tonight because they know that they are on the wrong side of this debate and they know that the public have found them out. This bill the “Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Tax Bill” is a metaphor for this Budget and this Government. First of all it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The Government has been telling us all night that this is somehow going to raise more money for biosecurity the money raised is going to be applied to biosecurity and we are going to have a wonderful new more robust biosecurity system because of the money raised from this but that is not true at all. This money is not all going to go towards biosecurity or at least the money raised here is simply going to replace money that has been spent on biosecurity before. Parties on both sides of the House have made a priority of biosecurity for years. There is nothing new about this Government talking about biosecurity being a priority. It is a priority for the Government and it is a priority for us because we know that biosecurity is so fundamentally important to our economy. It is pure smoke and mirrors. There is nothing in the way of additional funding for biosecurity as a result of this. Just like the rest of the Budget this bill is smoke and mirrors. Secondly it demonstrates a Government in absolute disarray. Government members have not been able to tell us tonight who this new tax is going to apply to and who is going to pay this new tax. They have not been able to tell us what it is going to be spent on and they have absolutely no idea how much this tax is going to be. They are passing a new tax under urgency at quarter to 10 at night and they have got absolutely no idea how much it is going to be. On Thursday it was going to be $16 then by the first reading speech tonight it was going to be $20 by the second reading speech tonight it was going to be $22—they have no idea. These Government members are in absolute disarray because they cannot honestly come to this House. They have come to this House and they are implementing a new tax without knowing who is going to pay it what it is going to be spent on or how much it is going to be—a Government in disarray. What this is of course is a new tax. Remember the promise. Remember the new promise: “No new taxes”. Look at that lovely picture of John and Bill there smiling lovingly into one another’s eyes and promising the country no new taxes. Well right through this Budget we have had three new taxes. It is the Government’s first Budget after the election—the election where it promised no new taxes—and this Budget has introduced no less than three new taxes. Why has it introduced three new taxes? Because it is failing to get the books back into surplus. This is not new money for biosecurity; this is freeing up other money so that the Government can desperately clutch at any straw available to try to get the books back into surplus. That is the truth of this. That is what is going on.Hon Simon Bridges: Let’s get a clutch of that hair.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Hey Simon Bridges can talk about hair as much as he likes. Half of the country’s oil production resides in the hair of that man. No wonder he is the Minister for it—he is its primary consumer. This is a new tax and the reason we have got this bevy of new taxes from—oh he does not like it!Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. I take personal offense to those comments. I have been getting a lot of good comments about this new hairdo.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Oh dear. They do not like it all do they? They have got to find any way to interrupt a speech that actually points out the truth of this Budget the Budget that introduced three new taxes after they promised no new taxes. Any little way that they can find to squeak the numbers back into surplus—the surplus that we have got to wait until next year for just like we had to wait until last year. This bill is a broken promise just like the rest of this Budget. This bill a broken promise and it is a sneaky new tax which is what this Budget is all about. New Zealanders have seen through it. New Zealanders have absolutely seen through this Government. It promised no new taxes. It promised to get the books back into surplus. Promises promises—always around the corner always next year. You have got to wait wait wait under this Government because this has been the Budget of broken promises and sneaky new taxes. This bill is an absolute metaphor for that. This Government is in absolute disarray. It has had 7 long years to get the books back into surplus. It was nine surpluses on this side of the House and none—not one—on that side of the House. Nine nil—nine nil.[Continuation line: That is the truth of it]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAYThat is the truth of it. That is the truth of it. The people of New Zealand are coming to understand that when it comes to economic management you cannot trust the National Party to run the Government books back into surplus. You cannot trust the National Party on its election promises because it will promise one thing—it will promise no new taxes and then it will introduce three just like it promised not to put GST up and it put GST up. No one can trust that Government any more. This bill is just a metaphor for the whole thing. Of course we are opposing this bill. We are opposing the whole Budget because it is a broken promise to the people of New Zealand. They can see through it. This is step one towards the end of this Government and a Labour-led Government after 2017.[Continuation line: Todd Barclay]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland)TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): My heart goes out to the previous member who spoke Iain Lees-Galloway given that he cannot hold a picture up of his leader Andrew Little. He is having to hold a picture up of John Key and Bill English—your political heroes. That is why I support this bill.[Continuation line: Barbara Kuriger]Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2)Speech - BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country)BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Tonight we have seen the Labour Party which has been so full of dictionaries and rhetoric that it has forgotten the purpose of what these bills are all about. We have also seen Mr Prosser over there who knows exactly what is good for him in biosecurity in the regions but he cannot get his party to stomach it. And we have had an absolute commendable presentation from the Greens who know exactly what is good for them. I commend these bills to the House.[PV on third reading—Ayes 72 Noes 33][Continuation line: Speaker’s Statement Chester Borrows]Speaker’s StatementsBudget 2015— ReflectionMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members it is a breach of convention for Speakers to ever be able to grade or rank the speeches that have occurred in the House. I would like to make a few reflections though. We have seen a number of firsts in the House. We have seen the bestowal of a new nickname on a certain member. I think “The Professor” might stick. I must say that I kind of like “Benson and Hedges” and I see there has been an amicable separation neither of them wishing to inhale each other’s second-hand smoke and mirrors. We have seen the ejection from the House of a certain member making his mark as the long-suffering Deputy Speaker’s first expulsion. The “Dr Michael Cullen Prize for Irrelevant History Lesson” goes to Chris Hipkins and the Belgian royal family. The “I’m So Pleased to Be Here in Urgency” goes to Debra Adams Chamber officer who was ecstatic this morning when I arrived. She just said: “I just love urgency.” The “Jill Pettis Prize for the Most Persistent Interjections” with 15 repeats of the same phrase in a 5-minute Committee stage goes to David Clark. I woke myself up this morning at 4.15 screaming something about the worst in 50 years. The “Asenati Lole-Taylor Paul Quinn Prize for Volume in a Speech” goes to Iain Lees-Galloway. But I want to extend our thanks to Roland Mary their teams the security staff the Chamber officers Hansard and the cafeteria staff for their extended duties. The fellow Speakers would like to join with me too in thanking you all for the spirit in which you have engaged in the debate.The House adjourned at 9.52 p.m. (Saturday)