Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Chair. We're having a good debate here at 11.27 p.m. on 31 May on a bill that I don't think needs to be going through urgency. I'm not sure what the panic is. Reading this bill I'm just not sure whether Cabinet was awake to allow this bill to come into the House in its present form or not because—Hon Scott Simpson: Deep contemplation.Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes there could have been one member in deep contemplation in Cabinet. But the reality is that this is a bill that just allows the Minister to have carte blanche responsibility for all of the regulations. There's nothing in the primary legislation that gives tourism operators any comfort in the fact that Cabinet can just go out and strike any levy it wants. If I was a tourism operator—Mr Davis has talked earlier on this evening saying there's already been widespread consultation. Well I wonder: why does it need to go through urgency? I want to hear from the Minister in the chair this evening Hon Iain Lees-Galloway what consultation there will be about striking the levy. How did he or his officials—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Thank you. Part 1 is actually a very narrow part of this bill. The question that the member has just asked is actually relevant to Part 2. So we're going to tighten up on relevancy. There are only two clauses in Part 1; the first one simply enables the levy to be struck. The question that you are asking Hon Nathan Guy is in Part 2.Hon NATHAN GUY: Thank you for clarifying that Mr Chair. I do want to make some introductory remarks but I want to keep them quite specific to the principal Act and the purpose which is covered in Part 1. We need to have questions answered this evening about what the purpose is? What is indeed the intent of this bill? Why has it been decided that it's going to cover conservation and immigration? I'm aware that the potential revenue that they may generate is around $80 million. I also have questions on the purpose about exemptions because if the Government is going to strike indeed a levy of this magnitude—Hon Member: Tax.Hon NATHAN GUY: Well it will. Yeah there's going to be quite a debate on the tax as well—whether indeed a levy is a tax. But I want to hear from the Minister this evening about the principal Act the purpose and the definition of the Minister" because in effect this inserts the Minister right into the decision-making powers. In my mind the Minister has—through the purpose of this Part 1—wide-ranging powers. What I also want to have clarified is what about the exemptions that are going to be covered at some point? We need to have a good wide—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's in Part 2.Hon NATHAN GUY: I know it is. I'm just foreshadowing—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm just giving the member a second warning on relevancy.Hon NATHAN GUY: Keeping it relevant. We need to be aware on Part 1 about the definition of the "Minister" and the definition of "conservation" and the international visitor levy—why indeed is it called a levy and not a tax? because it will be seen as a tax. It is a very blunt instrument. When I was in the House here in 2015 I brought in a border clearance levy and I heard from the Opposition at the time when Labour and New Zealand First voted against it. They screamed from the backbenches over there that it was going to be a tax. Of course what happened at the time was the Opposition—Labour and New Zealand First—voted against that and they cried from the backbench about it being a tax. The reality is they voted against that levy—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And the reality is that's irrelevant to this bill.Hon NATHAN GUY: And the reality is its context to the purpose of Part 1 because this gives the Minister wide-ranging powers."