Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I'm really concerned about the message that this bill will send to our international visitors. Basically they are saying that you are not equal. Some people will be more welcome; some people will be less welcome. The Minister just said that the criteria for exemption is that well Australia is closer to us and airfares are cheaper. That should be exactly the reason why Australia should not be exempt because they pay less to come to New Zealand. Other people will pay more to come to New Zealand but at the border they will be charged more—another $35 or even more. So this is a signal I believe that will be wrong to our international visitors.What are the criteria for the Minister really to decide who should be exempted? Now they say it is international interests but how do you define international interests? For example the Chinese market has been so important to us and the growth of the China market has been substantial in the past few decades. We have worked very hard to build up the China market. I have a table here. You'll see the growth of the China market—well it is in Chinese. In 1992 only 2789 Chinese visitors and ranked 30th on our table right? Then in 2012 it was ranked No. 2 after Australia with 180000 visitors. That's the growth of the China market.Now look at this table. This is for the year ended October 2018. The total number of international tourists was 3.8 million—3.8 million international visitors. Australian visitors were 1.48 million about 40 percent of our total international visitors. Then you have some other South Pacific nations like Fiji at No. 17; Samoa at No. 20; and Tonga at No. 24. These people from these countries are a large number but they won't be charged but people from far away who pay a lot of money will come to New Zealand and then be told Oh sorry you have to pay more."Another reason why I believe this is wrong is when you look at the contribution of individual visitors right? Here's another table. This is a bit old. This is 2011: the top 10 countries who sent visitors to New Zealand. Well No. 1: Australia with 1.1 million visitors—well this was in 2011. No. 2: the UK with 230000. Then there is the USA and then China. Well look at individual spending.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: India?Dr JIAN YANG: Sorry; India's not on top. It's not in the top 10. The No. 1 spender was South Korea individually over $4000 and then you have Japan at $3000 and China at over $3000. Australia in terms of the number of visitors is No. 1 but in terms of individual spending it is No. 10. So we are turning away our valuable visitors by charging them more. This is what this Government is trying to do. What kind of signal are they trying to send? I'm just wondering why this is happening. We do need more money for our visitors and for the tourism sector. We do need more money but by turning away more valuable visitors this Government is actually collecting less so in the end we'll get less by having this tax. This is a no-brainer. I don't know why they have done this.This whole process is so rushed and in the end we have no say. The Minister will decide or set regulations. The Minister will say "Well we did a thorough consultation." But my feedback—the feedback I have gotten from Chinese tourism operators in New Zealand—is they hate this. They hate this. They believe this will do damage to the China market which the previous Government spent a lot of time and energy trying to expand. So really this is a very bad bill."