McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker thank you very much.SPEAKER: There's clearly a mental block occurring here.Hon TODD McCLAY: He'll be on the phone asking for some of the salary very soon.SPEAKER: I'm sure the member will be generous enough to give it to him.Hon TODD McCLAY: This has been an appalling process. There was no reason at all for this bill to be rushed through urgency. Yesterday we made the case that actually urgency should be used sparingly and when there is urgency—there is an emergency. There is absolutely none here.The Minister of Tourism who actually didn't have the opportunity to answer any questions at committee stage yesterday because he's not the mover of this bill—he's not able to sit in the chair because he's not responsible for this bill even though this is a tourism bill dressed up to be snuck through in the equivalent of the dark of night around the detail in the guise of immigration. Largely what has happened is that this shows no commitment to the tourism sector. The tourism Minister has had 18 months to actually do something for the tourism sector. I give him his dues—he has announced projects around the country that have come from a funding mechanism a commitment that was put in place by the National Government not by his Government. So far he has delivered no extra money to tourism from the Government's Budget.The point of this is that the bill talks about a new funding mechanism but there is no need for a new funding mechanism for tourism if it is as important to this Government of the country as the Minister has just said in his speech. The reason it's not necessary is because the Government has inherited significantly large surpluses. They could be delivering funds to the tourism sector today. They could pick any amount of money. A great one would be the $200 million they've pulled out of the failed first year study free policy. They could have given that to tourism this year and the tourism industry would have security of knowledge that the funding was available to do the things that they need.There is no doubt that the case has been made for more infrastructure around tourism and that the burden upon many ratepaying bases is now too large. The reason for that is that the number of visitors to the country grew significantly over the last nine years because of a partnership between tourism and the Government. This Government and this bill does not build upon that partnership. It doesn't do anything for tourism. The Minister will say the $40 million that he's putting into tourism because of this new tax will fix the problems—it just won't. His officials have said in the regulatory impact statement that actually it hardly comes close to scratching the surface. There has been no commitment from this Government when it comes to tourism actually other than rhetoric and this bill on top of the previous rhetoric is just more.I say to the Minister: in the regulation-setting ability it says he can go and consult with some people but whomsoever he sees fit. Well the problem with that is—and we're already starting to see it only after 18 months—the people he would choose to consult with are the ones that are going to tell him what it is he wants to hear. That's why this has been an appalling process. He has robbed New Zealanders in the tourism sector and elsewhere of the ability to come to this Parliament and to have their say. Yep there was some consultation that went on but not the same as the degree of scrutiny that takes place in a parliamentary committee. There was no need for this to be rushed through. It's very bad legislation.We've already seen yesterday in committee stage we put in some Supplementary Order Papers where they weren't able to find the answers actually. One of them was which department would be responsible for doing the review—up to every five years—of the amount that's collected and also the mechanism. The answer was: Well don't worry because tourism's in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and so is immigration." But here's the problem: under the last Government there was no such thing as MBIE. Under the last Government MBIE was created—that's the point. At the start of the last Government there was not MBIE—it was created. Ultimately the problem we have here is members opposite at that time said that they would pull MBIE apart. Well actually the challenge you've got is maybe today MBIE sits there but what will have to happen for that review to take place in the future if a future Government decides that tourism should sit somewhere else? Perhaps there is real commitment from this Government—tourism should sit separately and be its own department or its own ministry as they've said they're going to try to do around forestry but haven't. You'll have to come back and amend the legislation.It is rushed through. It is bad legislation. It creates "Henry VIII" powers for a tourism Minister that does not have the backing or the confidence of the tourism sector. They will be back fixing this. It's very bad legislation."