King Annette: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3884. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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 electorate 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 mention that he was going to bring in a tax on their industry? Their Minister—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? No 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 10 past 5 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 I’m not going to bother.” “I’m not going to bother.” and that is a quote. The Prime Minister could not bother to tell 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—[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 were 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 they said. They are surprised that the Government itself would harm their industry—a $10.4 billion industry. Tourism 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 a double standard and it is what we expect from the National Party. 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.