Ardern Shane: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Shane: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 28 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill came about basically because two airports in New Zealand had been deemed to be international airports then lost the ability to be international airports and then found new contracts that potentially could start that up again. 
Of course any airport at any stage could apply to the Civil Aviation Authority the Customs Service and Biosecurity New Zealand to become an international airport. When that happens there is of course a cost. So in the interests of making sure that those services would be able to be provided and that the State was not going to be liable for costs that were short term it was decided that there needed to be a change in legislation to allow for the recovery of those costs. To that end this bill was promulgated and brought to the House. Effectively what the bill does is give the Government that ability. 
The main objectives of the bill are to ensure that international airports or requesters of non-routine services factor the border agency costs into the business decisions. For example—and this is an airport that I know is very close to you Mr Chairman; it is in my own electorate—the Hamilton Airport may apply to become an international airport if a carrier or a business venture is put forward in terms of setting that up as an international destination. There is a lot of merit in the notion that that might happen at times because it would be a very credible alternative to Mangere Airport in the event of some kind of accident there or some kind of inability for Mangere to operate. 
 Of course at that point customs officers Customs Service’s X-ray equipment biosecurity people and aviation authority personnel with their expertise etc. have to be recruited have to be trained and have to be stationed there and there is a cost for that. So the Crown in its desire to manage its fiscal responsibilities sensibly without having undue or large numbers of liabilities outstanding has come forward with this suggestion. I think it pretty much enjoys widespread support in the Chamber. 
The bill completes the funding arrangements agreed with the aviation industry back in 2004. It builds on the original policy to provide a simple clear and efficient cost-recovery system. The status quo exposes the Crown to fiscal risk as I said and a large cost when international airports are set up or re-established. 
Under the current funding model new international airports create a funding shortfall for the Government border agencies. Of course what we are always conscious of is the essential need to provide for much-needed biosecurity services as we are very vulnerable in that regard as we are also with of course the Customs Service. So what it effectively does is it removes that risk that liability from the Crown balance sheet but it also removes I guess a subsidy or an uncertainty that could be created in a business model if those costs were not included. 
The bill came to the Primary Production Committee and we listened to the submitters. There were a number of them and they raised a range of concerns and those concerns were taken on board. Some of those changes were made at that point and I think it is a very smart move on the part of the Government to move forward with the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill at this stage.