Prosser Richard: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the first reading of the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. This is a bill that New Zealand First would very much like to be able to support. At the moment we do not—or rather we cannot—support it because we have some questions and some concerns that are yet to be addressed and answered. I certainly hope that as the bill passes through the stages of urgency a Minister or Ministers or Government members take the opportunity to address these concerns and give us some answers. I notice that the Minister of Customs has already filled in a couple of details that I was not previously aware of so that helps to fill in the gaps. Yesterday the Rt Hon Winston Peters referred to this bill as the “Holiday Tax Bill” and that is one of our primary concerns. We are very concerned that in fact this may be nothing other than a holiday tax bill and I would like the Minister or someone else to reassure us that it is not.New Zealand First has called long and loud and often for better resourcing for biosecurity. We understand just how vitally important biosecurity is for the primary sector. We know full well how important the primary sector is to the entire economy and to our way of life. There is an awful lot riding on it and for that reason we have often and loudly called for better resourcing for biosecurity. If indeed this bill does constitute better resourcing if it does mean more money if it will mean more boots on the ground and if it will mean more sniffer dogs and more X-ray machines then those are good things that we will support wholeheartedly.I am a little bit concerned that Minister Wagner talked about cost recovery. That sort of raises a bit of a flag for me that perhaps this is not additional money; perhaps it is just shifting the revenue stream from one source to another. That is one of our concerns. If the Ministers can demonstrate how this levy is the best way to achieve an increase in resourcing for biosecurity and do so convincingly then we will be supportive of that as a move. But as I said at the moment we do not because there are still too many questions unanswered. There is too little in the way of detail and explanation in the bill itself and in the Government’s supporting material—its publicity material. There are some elements of that that are kind of ambiguous. There is material in the departmental disclosure statement for example that seems to be at odds with some of the Government’s publicity material and it would give us great confidence if the Government was prepared to address these matters as we go through the stages and hopefully persuade us that our concerns are not founded.I say that because if it does not then there is actually no other way in which this bill is able to be examined or explained because this bill like the others we have been debating since the Budget is being pushed through under urgency so there is no select committee process. There is no opportunity for the public to make submissions and no opportunity for industry for the primary sector to make submissions and no opportunity for anybody who is going to be affected to ask questions and to have input. That is the nature of urgency. When we move into urgency and pass legislation under urgency what we are essentially doing is suspending the normal constitutional processes of this House and of the country. It is not something that we believe should be done lightly or indeed often.But it does seem—certainly in the short number of years I have been in this House—to be becoming something that this Government is tending to do more and more often with greater frequency. Also it seems to me anyway that there is less and less in the way of justification. The day before yesterday when the Leader of the House was advising us why this bill would go through under urgency he said: “The Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill is being introduced because demand for border clearance services is increasing due to the number of airline and cruise ship passengers—”Grant Robertson: What? Over the weekend?RICHARD PROSSER: —yes—“arriving in and departing from New Zealand. This is expected to grow by some 3.5 percent annually for the foreseeable future and we simply need to have the users of the services that we provide to protect our borders paying for them. This bill requires Customs and Excise Act and Biosecurity Act changes because they do not currently provide the facility to collect that levy. Urgency is necessary to allow for a period of consultation on the design”—meaning the design of the levy—“post the passing of the bill which is the process that needs to be used. Thank you.”So according to Mr Brownlee urgency is needed because this is the process that needs to be used. So it is “just because”. Well “just because” is hardly an explanation for why the nation’s normal constitutional procedures are being sidelined. This is really a case of the Government saying to the Parliament: “Just sign this blank cheque and we’ll fill in the details later. Trust us. You don’t need to know.” So we have to ask why and we would really like some explanation and some clarification around that.This is only a levy-setting bill or a tax bill or a bill that authorises a fee or a rate—some money being paid. All it is is a bill that authorises a levy. We are not going to war. We are not declaring a republic. We are not changing the flag. I promise you we are not changing the flag—believe you me that ain’t happening—and we are not responding to some sort of natural disaster. We are applying a fee to passengers arriving and passengers departing and that is all. I fail to see how anything to do with setting a fee can be so crucial that we have to rush it through under urgency and dispense with normal procedure. But we will of course. The bill will go through with our support or not because the Government has the numbers. The ACT Party—all of him—will happily bend over in any direction the Government wants because he does not want to bite the hand that feeds him and United Future will also be compliant. That is just the way he has become. I recall a politician a member of this House from long ago who used to refuse on principle to support any legislation that was going through under urgency. That man was Peter Dunne. I wonder what ever became of him.So this bill will go through and we will have the opportunity to ask the Minister and the Government some questions about it. We will seek to have a number of matters clarified and if our concerns can be satisfied then I say to the Ministers that we are capable of having our minds changed by way of sound reasoning and we may well yet consider giving our support to the bill. Thank you.