Roy Eric: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Eric: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:704] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill be now read a second time 
. It is with some expression of delight that first I have the opportunity to speak in the House which does not occur very often and second something that had its genesis almost two decades ago is coming to fruition finally. So although the gestation period was a long one the bill actually came to the House and was tabled in the House on 13 October 2010. The Southland District Council first started to move on this in the previous year in September 2009 and on the fair island of Stewart Island in that time strangers have become friends friends have consummated their friendship and babies have been born. In this widest perspective Governments have been re-elected and Australian Prime Ministers have become persona non grata and stayed persona non grata and on Stewart Island in the year of our Lord 2012 19 cruise ships and the first two tranches of some 40000 visitors have arrived. So the 200-odd ratepayers are creaking at the seams— 
Hon Member 
: 400. 
ERIC ROY 
: No ratepayers. Please listen. The population is approximately 429 but the ratepayers are about half that amount. They have to provide the facilities for the increasing—but desired—visitor numbers attending Stewart Island.  
Can I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members for the work they have done. During the period that this was in the select committee with three extensions of time some 18 different members attended select committee sessions on the bill. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Only one chairman. 
ERIC ROY 
: Yes only one chairman and can I acknowledge his diligent work in actually seeing this coming to fruition as well. Because there has been some change in personnel in the period it probably does befit the occasion that I just remind the House why the bill is here. We have a situation that is particularly unique. Stewart Island—predominantly Rakiura National Park a settlement in the northern bay of Paterson’s Inlet Oban and a few sundry others—is required to host visitors. Very much of its business is around an increasing number of visitors and it is straining at the seams to provide the facilities that are required. So this bill provides an opportunity for the Southland District Council to manage a levy-collecting system where visitors will contribute to ongoing maintenance upkeep creation and mitigation of the effects of visitors on Stewart Island. 
I would have to say that all members of the select committee engaged in this in a very serious way. There was a degree of cordiality and an ongoing desire to find solutions. So why was the bill so long in the select committee? Well there were a couple of issues that did present themselves and gave some concern not only to members of the select committee but I guess to wider communities as well. One could see a certain degree of eagerness in the wider local government communities that this might be a mechanism by which they could get themselves out of trouble where situations of less than better management might have created some financial pressures. I need to just emphasise right at the start—and if members want to look on the second page of the commentary—that this in effect says quite clearly that this bill does not create a precedent for other local governments to follow. The situation on Stewart Island is sufficiently unique and I mentioned the 19 cruise ships that have been there thus far this year up from 13 in total last year. So it is a place of increasing desirability to visit and there is a need to accommodate these increasing numbers. It is a blemish against New Zealand as a whole if we have less than adequate facilities in this very special part of New Zealand. 
Although this is something of a unique situation it is not an exclusively isolated situation. The Chatham Islands has legislation that ensures the collection of a levy on freight that goes across the wharf that they might use that in a way to develop facilities on the island. In talking earlier to the Hon Annette King she said would it be possible to have a Supplementary Order Paper included into the bill in the Committee stage to include the Chatham Islands. Well in essence the answer is no. It is totally outside the scope of the bill. Can I just say to Mr Twyford who is looking somewhat disturbed about that notion that not only is it outside the scope but there was a significant amount of consultation with all parties and we have not had time to do that for the Chatham Islands. 
Can I just say that 15 submissions were presented when this bill was in the select committee. Fourteen were in favour; one was opposed and the rationale for their opposition was that the Government should just provide some more money to put in the facilities. That of itself would create something of an unusual precedent. There is a wide degree of acceptability in this. The legislation itself does provide some real robustness and transparency about how this would work in much the same way as legislation around road tolls in Tauranga provides a very clear and transparent system about how that money is collected and what the toll is set on.  
So the first instance that the select committee had some difficulty over was what it might mean in terms of a precedent. Can I also say that in that regard it is not unique to New Zealand. There are a number of countries around the world—Australia UK US Ireland quite a bit of Europe Switzerland—where various mechanisms to cope with visitors are in place. So we are not setting ourselves up as somewhat unique or in some way creating some international first that might cause some repercussions. I just need to assure the House that this is quite an elegant solution in terms of accommodating the pressures of visitors in that area. 
I have not at any stage stated what I think the visitor levy should be because there is going to have to be some work done on how the Southland District Council which is charged with the responsibility might want to deal with a cruise ship that might have 2000 visitors on board but only 300 get off. So there are some areas where that will need to be dealt with. 
One of the other areas that challenged the select committee was precisely what a visitor is and I think other members who have been on the select committee might want to expand a bit on that. What I was quite happy to do or had in the first draft of the bill—which perhaps might be called a Henry VIII clause—actually empowered the Southland District Council to make those sorts of rules. But quite clearly that was not acceptable so we spent some time looking at precisely who is a visitor and who might be excluded the issue of Maori land on Stewart Island and what happens to people who actually fly by helicopter or fixed-wing plane or use a boat to enjoy the wider national park without using the facilities that are in the Oban township itself. All of those things are dealt with under the interpretation of precisely who is a visitor. 
Can I again just say that I am really happy that after such a long gestation and birthing process this bill is now in its second reading. I thank the House thank members of the select committee the officials and those people who put in submissions and I look forward to this bill being passed in short order through its Committee stage. I look forward to any issues that people might want to raise at that time and I think that will be an appropriate time to answer any questions. Thank you.