Davis Kelvin: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):I would like to thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy for that because we do get it. We do get that this is about our biosecurity and about protecting our agricultural interests but there are a few things that we do not get. One of the things we do not get is why there were cuts to biosecurity 4 or 5 years ago and why 54 biosecurity staff members were cut 4 or 5 years ago. This is just a replacement—this tax. And it is a tax and let me tell you why I know it is a tax aside from the OxfordDictionary as well as the Collins English Dictionary saying a tax is a levy and a levy is a tax. I also checked the Māori dictionary and the Māori dictionary says that a levy is a tax and if us Māori say it well then it must be true. So what we do not understand is why there were cuts 5 years ago and why this is now happening and why all of a sudden it is really important that we get more in tax to replace those services that were lost.I have a few questions and they stem from some of the comments made by the National Party members during the second reading. One was from Ian McKelvie. He said: “the levy will not put an impost on those who cannot afford to pay it.” I am not sure what that means. If people cannot afford to pay it then of course it is going to be an impost. So I would like the National Party to explain exactly what that was meant to mean.Another question I have is how much this will cost to administer. If it is going to cost $6 to fly out of New Zealand how much of that $6 is actually going to go into the administration of it? If I can just go to the police vetting legislation that the Law and Order Committee is talking about one of the concerns of submitters about the $7 fee for police vetting is that most of that $7 is actually going to be used to administer the fee. That is a question I have for the Minister. Exactly how much of that $6 fee to go out of New Zealand is going to be used up in administration? If the biosecurity threat comes from tourists coming into New Zealand then why do you not just exempt New Zealanders who are flying out? New Zealanders flying out of New Zealand do not pose a biosecurity threat to New Zealand. Sure when they come back in I can understand that they may bring in an apple or something such as my wife did when she came back from Australia one day and it cost us $400.I also have got a few questions based around section 140AB “Contents of border processing levy order”. It is around the word “may”. It says: “A levy order under section 140AA may”—it “may” so it is not saying “it will”. It is just saying it may “prescribe different rates of levy”—or it may not—“on any differential basis for different persons or different classes of persons:”. That is really unclear—first of all that it says “may” and not “will” or “should” or “must”. It says it “may”. But what is a different class of person? I am really not quite sure what that means and I would like the Minister to explain that. For “different persons” why would one person be prescribed different rates over the other? It says it may “prescribe a maximum rate or maximum rates of levy:”—so may or may not? That is still unclear.The bill says it will “provide subject to such conditions as may be prescribed for extensions of time for the payment of levy:”. Will there be extensions of time for the payment of this levy or not? What is going to happen to people if they need to have an extension of time? That is unclear. It will “provide for the payment of additional or increased levy in the event of late payment or non-payment:”. So will there be increased levies if there is non-payment of the levy or the tax? It may “provide for circumstances in which levy paid may be refunded:”. What are those circumstances for which the levy may be refunded? We have got no idea. It is very unclear as to what the circumstances may be that the levy would be refunded and to whom and under what conditions. It would be good for the Minister to explain that to the Committee. The bill may “require that levy funds payable be held on trust in separate accounts.”—it may “require that levy funds payable be held on trust in separate accounts.”I would like to know the answers to those questions. I would like to have those issues cleared up. This word “may” or “must”—it says “may” in the legislation; should it be “must” or not? So those are just a few questions just to add to the debate that I would like the Minister to clarify for the Committee. Kia ora.