Guy Nathan: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGuy Nathan: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3915. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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 that it was not opposed to a border 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.”Hon Annette King: Did you consult them?Hon NATHAN GUY: 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 to futureproof 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 of 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 straight away 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 acknowledged 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 attention of the Committee from 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 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 the one hand we have the primary industry saying: “Good on the Government for bringing this in.” and actually one of them is 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 on visitors are going to be low. 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. 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 the Customs Service. 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 for the Customs Service 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 New Zealand and the Customs Service 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 the Customs Service 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 and to enjoy what New Zealand has to offer.