Roy Eric: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11768] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I shall move that this bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
It is something of a rare pleasure for me to be able to speak in the House today on this bill. Firstly I do not have many opportunities to actually participate— 
Grant Robertson 
: Very sad! 
ERIC ROY 
: —yes it is indeed sad I tell Mr Robertson—so this is something that I am quite looking forward to for many reasons. I would like to refer particularly to Stewart Island not just as a jewel in the crown of my electorate but as a jewel in the crown of New Zealand. It is a special and unique place. Stewart Island has a lot of unique and very energetic people who have a vision and energy about the place. It is a unique place for its people as well as for its environment. 
It is also a place where I have spent quite a considerable amount of my time on and off. If I can reflect for a moment I can tell the House that my earliest associations with Stewart Island were shooting deer and harvesting paua—so this bill really indicates the old phrase “a poacher turned gamekeeper”—although I assure the House that all of the paua I harvested were oversize and within limits. But one other illustration I would like to give is that in the winter of 1968 when I was a mere slip of a lad at a place called Moonlight Point on the Freshwater River I heard an odd thumping sound during the night. I took what some people would call a spotlight and what I would call a strong torch to investigate where the sound was coming from. I discovered a most unusual parrot-like bird puffing himself up and booming. Outside of Department of Conservation staff there would be very very few people who could claim they have seen a kakapo booming. That was in the winter of 1968. 
I raise that point because it is my expectation that another project that I am involved in which is removing all predators from Stewart Island will be an opportunity for many people to enjoy—not just New Zealanders but international visitors as well. So the very reason for us to consider this bill before the House is to enable the Stewart Island community to be able to provide infrastructure for the island which is under stress because of the number of visitors it receives—and that stress will greatly increase—and to relieve that stress and that pressure. The vision I have for Stewart Island’s tourism includes a predator-free island. 
However let us go to the bill and ask what it does. The bill sets a platform and process whereby levies can be charged to visitors in order that infrastructural needs can be met. How would that happen? It is envisaged that transport operators travelling to and from Stewart Island would charge a levy of at this stage not more than $5 per person—probably a little bit less—in order to provide those needs that the community is now struggling to provide. The needs I am talking about are facilities like toilets and tracks—the sorts of infrastructural needs that tourism brings. 
Why is that necessary on Stewart Island? The population of Stewart Island is just a little under 400—there are 451 ratepayers including people with cribs or baches plus some businesses as well—so it is totally impractical to expect the ratepayer base to provide those facilities. The island as I say has a population of fewer than 400 people. Visitor numbers are about 36000 without children but that was before the cruise ships discovered Stewart Island. Last year I understand five cruise ships arrived. 
The question could be asked as to why these good people do not just get on and do something. Well I have to say that I first suggested this process some 15 years ago and at that stage three providers were supplying transport to and from the island and we were never able to get the three of them in one paddock. Currently there are two providers but if we do not legislate for this levy it makes it possible for a new transport provider to say that its point of difference will be having no levy for those who travel with it. That is one reason why we need to do it. The other reason is that there needs to be some consideration of the pressures placed on the island by cruise ships so I deem it necessary to have something robust placed on the statute book. 
The bill will also provide some transparency in that a process will be laid down. The Southland District Council will administer this legislation so there will be transparency about how much money is collected and how it is spent. There is a process by which priorities for spending can be determined and all of those sorts of things will be visible. We are not putting in place just an ad hoc arrangement but something that will have durability robustness and transparency which will make it all work. 
I agonised for some time when I was talking with the Southland District Council about how this levy might be future-proofed because I did not want to have to come back to the House in 10 years’ time to amend the legislation if costs increased or if the levy needed to be adjusted. After thinking about “Henry VIII” clauses and seeing them get the thumbs down I can report that there is now a provision in the bill that allows the district council to strike what the levy will be. I understand that for some members this might be a somewhat new provision. Rather than vote against the bill on a technicality like that I certainly want those members to participate in the select committee process in order that we might work through any issues of concern. I ask members then to consider firstly the principle and I would like their support for the bill on that basis. 
There is nothing unique about charging a visitor fee for entry to a unique place. It happens now at a variety of places in New Zealand although very few of those fees are enshrined in legislation. Charging a fee also has quite significant international standards and there is quite a list of places around the world where that particular facility is enshrined in law and is a part of the way of having those necessary infrastructural needs provided. 
People who live on Stewart Island have a range of pressures placed on them. They are isolated: they are in an isolated community so all of the costs of living—the necessities—are much more expensive. There is no easy way to generate electricity so there is a diesel generator on the island. The cost of electricity is 53.5c a unit so if members want to consider another reason why it would be extremely difficult to have ratepayers fund these particular costs then they need to consider only the cost of living on Stewart Island. The island has a population that is in decline. Essentially the community provided and processed job opportunities through fishing but now there is only one fish processing place left on the island. There are some aquaculture farms but their produce is now processed on the mainland. 
The people of Stewart Island have asked how they can have a future for their community and they are looking very much at tourism. I am holding up a copy of the  
Stewart Island Tourism Strategy 
 which is currently being considered and discussed. If in fact Stewart Island wants to increase its viability it will need to increase its visitor numbers and that will exacerbate the problem it is currently having difficulty funding. That is why we need to have a robust process that will provide the means for these infrastructural situations. 
I commend this bill to the House for consideration. As I have said a great deal of thought has been put into it. A poll held on Stewart Island has supported it. The bill has the support of the community it has the support of the current tourism operators and it also has the support of the Southland District Council. The legislation has been in gestation for some years—more than a decade. We are at the point now when everybody has agreed that it is something we want to have so I invite members to support the bill and be involved in the select committee process.