Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Mr Speaker? Thank you.SPEAKER: I have called the member yes. Jacqui Dean.Hon JACQUI DEAN: So by name sorry?SPEAKER: Sorry?Hon JACQUI DEAN: By name.SPEAKER: Jacqui Dean.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yeah. Care to do it correctly Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: I beg the member's pardon. The Hon Jacqui Dean.Hon JACQUI DEAN: The Speaker is a stickler so—SPEAKER: I am a stickler—Hon JACQUI DEAN: —thank you. Thank you.SPEAKER: —and I know the member is pretty much perfect too.Hon JACQUI DEAN: And the Speaker is about to find out just how perfect this person is. So thank you Mr Speaker. I do sincerely hope that that 16 seconds' worth of perfection won't eat into my time and I am quite sure that the Speaker will indulge perhaps a further 16 seconds at the end of my contribution on the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill.I've spent quite a bit of time this evening looking at this bill. It's a brief piece of legislation and in a sense while it's not a good thing for the Government to be rushing this bill through the House with unseemly haste perhaps a reason why the Government are doing this lies in the bill itself and in the crafting of the bill which when it gets read really is quite a poor do. There are a couple of comments I would like to make about that.There are two parts in this bill. Part 1 obviously amends the Immigration Act. If I turn to Part 1 clause 5 and the definition of Minister" I suspect that the definition of "Minister" contained in the bill might have made sense to the officials who were drafting this last Tuesday evening but it certainly doesn't make for very clear legislation at all. If I could just mention in passing the lack of clarity even in this small matter of ministerial responsibility contained in clause 5 surely would be a reason why a more robust process for the consideration of this bill should have been undertaken.So "Clause 5 amends the principal Act's definition of Minister to help enable responsibility for different provisions of the Act to be given to different Ministers." Well I've never read anything like that in any piece of legislation in my time in Parliament. It is as loose as a goose. "It also inserts definitions of conservation and international visitor conservation and tourism levy." But here's the bit that is most concerning: "Clause 5 amends the principal Act's definition of Minister to help enable responsibility for different provisions of the Act"—which provisions? I'll go on to the Act itself because we are just in the explanatory note so far. But "different provisions of the Act to be given to different Ministers."—naturally the House will assume that those provisions will be very clearly set out in the body of the bill because as I say we're just talking to the explanatory note at the moment. Furthermore there are a couple of questions that I will ask and I am signalling now that I will want to ask whichever Minister is in the chair.There is another problem. The bill signals that there will be "different provisions of the Act to be given to different Ministers." So does that mean Mr Speaker—a stickler for precision—that when the House comes to the committee of the whole House stage because there are different provisions of the bill being raised by members those questions should then be answered by different Ministers? I raise this point very seriously because this bill does assign responsibilities to different Ministers and in the committee of the whole House stage it is Parliament's opportunity to clarify just what those responsibilities might mean in terms of a tourism levy under the Immigration Act. Some clarity on that would be appreciated because this side of the House will exercise its right and duty to be able to question Ministers in the committee of the whole House. Some guidance on that would be appreciated at any time.Moving on to clause 7—the mechanics of this bill. Of course people may apply for a temporary class visa for travel to New Zealand or rely on a waiver of the requirement to hold a temporary class visa for travel to New Zealand. Then we move on: "The levy's purpose is broadly"—it says—"to fund conservation and tourism-related infrastructure and initiatives." We have so many questions for the House about what that exactly means given that it is in the primary legislation. Again will three or four hours of committee of the whole House stage enable the members of the Opposition to tease out just what that means in statute in New Zealand?I go on: "The regulations may specify who must pay the levy"—and a little is known about that—"and how it is to be collected and may provide for exemptions from the levy. The Minister may also grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis." What does that mean? Does that mean that there could be a class exemption as for the exemption for Australian and Pacific Island travellers? Is it a class exemption or is it an individual exemption for an individual traveller? I have read the bill. I've only had a few hours to do that but that would be one of those critical things in a bill such as this that should be explained by way preferably of a full consultation and a select committee process. So I will be asking the Minister—Ministers—at committee of the whole House stage to explain to the House what is meant by clause 7 in this bill.A further question I have—and I'm flagging these because I will be requesting answers and I don't know who I will be asking those questions of. Which Minister will it be? Will it be the Minister of Tourism? It doesn't specify which Minister. Will it be the Minister for Housing and Urban Development? It doesn't specify. It just says "the Minister". Well how loose is that? Or will it be the Minister of Immigration? Will the Minister of Immigration be considering class exemptions or will the Minister of Immigration be considering individual exemptions? Then the next question that follows from that is given that we understand that the tourism tax is going to be $35 per person I will need an explanation of how it can be that a Minister of the Crown and their officials are going to spend a number of hours considering exemptions all for a $35 fee. If it is the case that this is an individual exemption on a case-by-case basis then one has got to question whether or not this is good legislation to start with.I'm going to move on to the regulatory impact statement because again that raises a number of questions to me. So section B "Summary Impacts: Benefits and costs" leads on from my previous comments. The question arises: "Who are the main expected beneficiaries and what is the nature of the expected benefit?" Then the advice comes back: "No specific decisions have been made on where [the tourist tax] revenue will be spent." Furthermore the advice is "direct beneficiaries are likely to include central government agencies such as the Department of Conservation"—but maybe others because the advice says "such as" so there might be others—"and local government agencies responsible for most"—for most—"public tourism infrastructure". "Most"? What does that mean? Wouldn't a select committee process be most helpful in the consideration of this bill?I have many other points to make on this tourist tax piece of legislation. The final point I do want to make is that the Government—and somewhere in the papers I have read that this tourist tax is not intended to solve the whole problem of funding for tourism but to just address a part of it. My contention is: why rush this through under urgency ahead of the local government funding and financing investigation of the Productivity Commission? I want answers to that."