Goldsmith Paul: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1179. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I am bound to say that I have not had the opportunity yet to visit Stewart Island and more is the pity; I would love to get down there. I have— 
Hon Annette King 
: What about the Chathams? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: The closest I have been is Bluff and I have seen it. I have not been to the Chatham Islands either. There is a long way I have got to go. 
I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee last year either but instinctively I am not generally in favour of new taxes and levies. I think we pay enough taxes and levies as it is and I do not share great enthusiasm for giving local government power— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Miserable. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: —hang on I have not finished yet—and giving local government the opportunity to raise new taxes but in this situation the logic does seem to be reasonably compelling. We have here a situation where there is a very small remote community where a large number of visitors come up to 40000 a year and we do need to get some basic infrastructure in place there and find a better way of paying for it. 
I salute Eric Roy for his efforts here. The widespread support that this bill has had in the House is surely testament to the efforts of Eric Roy and the widespread enthusiasm that people in the House have for him and his efforts. I remember playing in the Parliamentary Rugby Team with him in the 1990s and he—[ 
Interruption 
] Well that is right. He was galloping around the place and we played in Southland. He is a very well-regarded local MP and this bill I think is just a small way in which he can improve the life and economy of part of his electorate in Stewart Island. 
I would like to just draw attention to some of the details that were handled by the select committee—amendments to clause 4 for example on definitions. The provision of a definition of “approved operator” is intended to assist the council to enter into contracts for transport operators such as cruise ship operators. The council then would be able to gather revenue from operators on behalf of passengers rather than separately from each visitor. I think that is a better way of handling the situation. 
The committee also recommended replacing clause 18 to make offences infringement offences. The cost to the council of prosecuting offences by a visitor as a summary offence would be substantial whereas an infringement offences regime would be more appropriate for the kind of thing that we are dealing with. Unfortunately if you introduce a levy you do have to have some sort of arrangements for dealing with people who will not pay and I think that is a simple way of doing it in a relatively cost-effective way. 
It is my expectation that with this bill and with this levy Stewart Island will be in a much better place in the next few years to create a warm and inviting environment for visitors whose numbers will surely only grow over the next decade as more and more people realise what a wonderful part of the world this is and what a wonderful place it is to visit. Now I think we are in a better place because of this bill so I commend this bill to the House.