McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you Mr Speaker. Indeed if I was the Hon Roger McClay the rules of the House would allow a very very wide-ranging debate and you and others would be out there in the snooker hall drinking and smoking right now. The world has moved on. SPEAKER: He did play for a very good rugby club in Taumarunui. Hon TODD McCLAY: He did thank you very much. When it comes to this legislation Part 2 of the bill is around the electronic travel authority and that is something that we do believe is important. Indeed actually it is a tool to allow our border authorities to undertake their jobs to the best degree possible. Equally for international visitors wanting to come to New Zealand to be able to do this with ease electronically is an important means for us to ensure we have the information required to know about them before they get here before they get on the plane. We have no issue at all with that. Indeed our spokesperson Michael Woodhouse is a firm believer that this is an important tool. The challenge we have though is the speed with which this legislation is going through the House. There have been times when this House has had to pass legislation under urgency and there have been times when this House on both sides has used urgency when the need perhaps is less obvious. In the case that there is a real need that urgency must be afforded often the House has been able to come together. This is not one of those times because this legislation is not urgent. It's not fixing an urgent problem that's been sitting there that the Government has just found. Indeed the Minister has now had 18 months to work through this to be able to meet the promises that he made before the election to deliver well-thought-out legislation that has all of the detail that a tax bill should have in it so that a select committee can study it can question the department and can bring in experts and so that anybody in New Zealand can submit on it to make the legislation better or to say they don't need it. But it is a fundamental right of democracy in New Zealand and this House that New Zealanders have the opportunity to come before us as parliamentarians as the decision makers and make their case. In this legislation they are being robbed of that opportunity. Now the Minister said he has consulted widely and actually the first reading speeches are often boisterous but this is a very important issue because actually I am not sure that the sector has the same degree of confidence in this legislation to be delivered in the way that the Minister says it is as the Minister has. I know that his officials don't have the same degree of confidence that this legislation will achieve the outcomes that the Minister is telling us it will as he has. The reason for that is when you come and look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and you look at what his officials have said there they have said that actually this won't deliver all of the funding that's required. Much much more will be needed; much more was needed last year in the Budget—much more was needed last year in the Budget. The tourism sector is important. It didn't deserve a cut to the Budget last year. Even though it was a small one it sends a signal to them that the Government either is not taking this seriously or is taking them for granted or just thinks a new tax later on will achieve everything that is needed. So in the RIS it says that this isn't enough money; it won't achieve anything that the Ministers have said in their speeches that they've just read in the House. But if you go to page nine on the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy (IVL) impact statement halfway down under Consultation" it says "Further targeted consultation is planned to inform the IVL expenditure decisions". Well that is important but this legislation has no guidance at all about how those expenditure decisions will be made. It says "Legislation will also be subject to select committee process." So the officials said to the Minister that actually more consultation is needed and that there will be a select committee process. He's had 18 months to deliver a full bill to this House not something that relies upon the Immigration Act to give him the ability to pass regulations on everything and these regulation-setting powers that are in this bill are extremely broad. This is more than the equivalent of a "Henry VIII" clause because there is no boundary other than that it's going to be used for tourism—but the legislation doesn't say that. It says the IVL will be collected and it will go into the Crown accounts. It's not being protected for conservation and tourism. The Minister has just said that that's what will happen just as it says in the RIS that the "legislation will also be subject to select committee process." This should be going before the select committee because there has never been a bill in this House that's been rushed through that hasn't had problems that we haven't had to come back to fix. Mark my words; we won't have to fix this bill because it actually does not deliver this tax. All it does is give the Minister the ability to set regulations and any regulation he wants. The most concerning part of it is he said he must consult but he can consult on anybody he deems fit. Well that's extremely concerning because I guarantee you there are New Zealanders who are being robbed of the opportunity to put in submissions and come before the committee of this Parliament to have their say. That Minister's not going to go and talk to them and if they email him he's not going to listen to them because he's already made up his mind. This is bad legislative process. It's bad legislation. I have no faith at all that this Minister will deliver regulations that won't have to be fixed—the tourism Minister will deliver regulations that won't have to be fixed and are going to deliver for the New Zealand tourism industry. Now the cost to the tourism sector is significant. The Minister of Tourism will say "But lots of tourists are going to come" and he is right; the numbers have been going up. But his officials have informed him that 20000 fewer visitors will come here. I would argue they may not be the richest visitors to our country. They may well be to some degree the backpackers because we are not a cheap destination New Zealand anymore. We shouldn't compete on price but we should be value for money or people should see there is value in visiting New Zealand. Every extra cost every extra tax this Government puts on means that visitors have choices and some of them many of them may choose elsewhere. Now what we also know in the advice he's been given is that $70 million less will be spent in the New Zealand economy because of this tourist tax. Now that doesn't sound like very much I suppose when there's $16 billion spent. But when we look at that $70 million less being spent in small tourism businesses in New Zealand is the equivalent of the annual revenue for 80 small family-owned motels in New Zealand—80 small family-owned motels in New Zealand. In fact every single motel in Havelock North in Hastings—it adds up to just about 80. That's the equivalent annual revenue they get.This Minister is saying "Doesn't matter what the officials say because I've already consulted. I've already decided that $70 million is going to harm small businesses in New Zealand that rely upon tourism". He's right; more visitors will come. But we shouldn't say it doesn't really matter that this tax that we're putting in is going to actually have an impact upon the value that people see in New Zealand and whether they come or not. It doesn't matter that some won't come because actually he made a promise to the New Zealand electorate to deliver money for them extra money for tourism and in 18 months he's only delivered a $7 million cut in the Budget last year. There is no new money in this year's but there is a tax. That tax is only going to deliver $40 million to tourism; none to those small businesses.Every single council in the country has been saying to him when he's been visiting them that it won't even come close. There are councils in the country that have said they won't even apply for this money because it's not even worth it—it won't even come close. Therein lies the challenge—$40 million Mr Minister of Tourism doesn't cut it. It doesn't meet your commitment to the New Zealand tourism industry. It doesn't show that you are interested in them. It certainly doesn't show that you understand the challenges. When the Minister stands up here and says "We're going to do all of these things" well announcements are not going to build those roads; announcements are not going to promote New Zealand overseas. His announcements of what he hopes to do in the future by the way so far have rested solely on—the sole delivery has been on—the money that we committed in tourism funding previously over a four-year period. Those sorts of things are actually not going to buy the social licence and not going to convince the New Zealand tourism sector—who employ 400000 people in this country; one in every seven jobs is tourism—that you have their best interests at heart. This $40 million is nowhere near enough. He had the opportunity to make the case for hundreds of millions of dollars in the Budget last year and this year and sadly he has failed them."