Beaumont Carol: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14091] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I also rise to speak in support of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Before the Hon Maurice Williamson does not get a chance to hear more of my speech I will give him a wee correction: my colleague is Su’a William Sio. I draw that to his attention in a constructive manner. 
As I said this is a bill that Labour supports. It was introduced by David Carter in his biosecurity portfolio. As the previous speaker the Hon Maurice Williamson outlined it is a sensible provision. It looks at the cost of providing customs and biosecurity services to new international airports and also to international airports that close down and then start up again—and I will come back to that in a minute. Those services are significant they are required to be provided at international airports and there is significant cost associated with them. As I have said from our position we support the bill. We have to seriously invest in services that protect our country from invasive foreign pests. That is very important given the nature of our economy and I will talk a little more on that shortly. 
New international airports clearly place a significant added burden and require additional investment in biosecurity and customs services. They should bear a part of the cost of that significant investment. From our perspective the requirement to provide some sort of cost recovery needs to be balanced against the economic development interests of regions that new international airports may service. The example given previously was the potential for an international airport in Timaru. I personally cannot see that happening anytime soon but should that be the case then the economic development interest would clearly be there. 
In looking at this bill in a little more detail I note that it essentially provides for cost recovery of aviation security biosecurity and customs traveller processing in relation to scheduled international flights that arrive or depart from new or re-established international airports and international flights where on request travellers are processed in a non-routine manner at any international airport. That could be at an existing international airport that is outside of the normal schedule. 
The objective of the bill is to reduce the Government’s exposure to an unpredictable or unlimited liability in relation to the processing of travellers. The previous Labour Government looked at that issue in 2004 as has been mentioned. It consulted on and discussed this matter widely with regional councils and businesses. It chose at that time to reduce the cost recovery period for providing customs and biosecurity services to just 1 year. Its members were concerned that a longer period would have issues around economic development for regions. Since that time both Rotorua and Invercargill have established international airports and they have removed two of the primary objectives of the policy. 
We think that the bill probably goes too far in proposing a 3-year cost recovery period; 2 years might perhaps be a fairer balance. We are keen to discuss that balance in a select committee. As members can see I am sure that this will be a very constructive discussion. We are basically on the same page here. The discussion will be on the detail. 
As I said the previous Labour Government put considerable effort into consulting the public when it looked at the prior legislation. There was a discussion document and a number of objections were raised which the Government listened and responded to. The difference between that legislation and this legislation is that this legislation has not been well signalled. There has been no consultation—not even a press release heralding the arrival of this bill. 
However it is fair that new international airports should pay their fair share of the cost of customs and biosecurity arrangements. As I said earlier the issue of biosecurity is one of the most significant economic issues for this country. Given our dependence on our primary industries getting it right in terms of biosecurity is absolutely fundamental. We could devastate entire industries and huge earnings for our country by making mistakes in this space. 
Prior to coming to Parliament I was a member of the previous Government’s Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce. The task force looked very closely at a number of areas related to this bill because the food and beverage sector is a significant part of our economy. It always will be in my opinion because it is something that we have a natural advantage at. Despite our distance from many of our markets we do it remarkably well. But we must have really strong regulation and support in areas like biosecurity. It is interesting that biosecurity is one of the few areas of regulation we can talk about that everyone agrees on. Even those people who say that we should not have too much regulation and that we should get rid of all the red tape know that in terms of biosecurity that is not the case. 
I also note that I did my Business and Parliament Trust placement with AsureQuality. I was very impressed by the work that it and others do in the biosecurity area. They are dedicated to this cause and dedicated to securing the place of our primary industries in our economy. So I would just like to acknowledge their work. 
We were very concerned last year when the jobs of 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand were cut. We think that was very very foolish and that those cuts should be reversed. Those were front-line positions—and this Government talks a lot about back-office and front-line positions—that were vital to protect our country against foreign pests and organisms that could wreak economic and environmental havoc. 
I say again that this bill is about the viability of our country. Our economy is very very dependent on our primary industries so I urge the Government to look at that issue and reconsider the loss of 54 staff and the relative cost of that compared with things like the $10 billion cost that foot-and-mouth would cause if it ever took hold in New Zealand. I hope we can get some agreement on that across the House in the spirit of cooperation on the important issue of biosecurity. 
The main provisions of the bill are cost recovery at new and re-established international airports. Charges for processing travellers will be specified in regulations. The bill will specify the costs that may be recovered and the methods of charging as well as the limit of the time period for cost recovery. At the moment the bill talks about a maximum of 3 years with a lesser period able to be prescribed by regulation. I think there will be quite a lively discussion about that at a select committee. We should take account of the submissions that will be made on the issue of the appropriate period of time for cost recovery to apply. 
At the expiry of the cost-recovery period the cost of aviation security services will continue to be recovered. However the charges will then fall directly on the airline but biosecurity and customs services will be funded by the Government after that cost-recovery time period. I think that is recognition of the private and public good aspects that are in place with things like aviation security biosecurity and customs. 
There is a grace period for international airports that are being re-established. The grace period allows an airport company to find a replacement airline within a reasonable time. During that time the processing services could remain in place which is important. So we may have an international airport Rotorua for example where for some reason the carrier decided to vacate that spot. That scenario is unlikely—I am not sure but I assume that the international service from Rotorua is Air New Zealand—but let us for argument’s sake say that a carrier decided to vacate that spot. Clearly there would be a strong desire to get another airline in place. The grace period would mean the airport company could do that before the cost-recovery period would take place. 
Those are main points I want to draw to the attention of the House. Although this bill may not feature as one of the sexiest bills to hit the House it is fundamentally important. I can see that the member across the House Shane Ardern who is very concerned about primary production—as I am—can see the importance of this. I commend this bill to the House.