McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair thank you very much. I have some specific questions for the Minister in a moment but I want to make an observation because in the first part in this part we have been talking about the confusion that exists over which Minister is responsible. I've got to tell you that if anybody in the tourism sector in New Zealand had a small amount—even a small amount of confidence—in the Minister of Tourism it's now walked out the door because the Minister of Tourism didn't even bother to ask those questions of the Minister of Immigration in Cabinet when they decided to put this through. That's just crazy by golly.Hon Ruth Dyson: Doesn't quite recognise sarcasm—having a joke at your expense.Hon TODD McCLAY: To Ms Dyson on the other side of the Chamber she wouldn't know because sadly she doesn't get to go to Cabinet but I guess we know why that is.In particular I want to ask the question of the Minister of Immigration but herein lies the problem because I assume based on the explanation he gave in Part 1 that it will be the Minister of Tourism that actually is responsible for implementing the policy under Part 2. It says in here the Minister of Tourism will specify categories or classes of people that will be liable to pay this tax. It also says the regulations will provide exemptions from the tax or refunds of part of the tax. Then finally it gives the Minister the ability to exempt by special direction—not by regulation; special direction—any person or persons from their obligation to pay. We need to know much more about how that will work because one is going to set a regulation about who will be included and who won't.It doesn't matter about this special app that he's talking about which he seems to have designed himself. It doesn't matter how many languages it's in or how they'll be able to put their own credit card in—gee there's a lot of confidence going on there! Actually what we need to know is what the detail of the regulation will be because fundamentally as we've said before this is tax policy in the area of tourism that is being enacted at some stage in the future by regulation. All this does is it gives the Minister the ability to set lots and lots and lots of regulations and there's just not enough detail in it. So we need actual answers from the Minister who will be responsible for this. I guess it's the Minister of Tourism so maybe his colleague responsible for the bill—because it's an immigration bill—might have to leave the Chamber so that he doesn't have to get up and ask questions of him the Minister of Tourism. But specifically what categories or classes of people is he going to include in the regulation? Since he's the one setting the regulation to give himself the ability to exempt who is he going to exempt?Then finally this legislation will give the Minister of Tourism the ability through special direction to exempt people. Actually we need to know that he is going to take this seriously—seriously—and not just exempt people because he feels like it because it doesn't have any scope any definition any control or even any advice in this legislation about how he would exempt people—none at all. All it says is that by special direction he can. Now when it comes to the Immigration Act the Minister has the ability in immigration issues. He has special direction powers as well but there is a lot of definition and there is a lot of case history and a lot of precedent.This is something—this immigration bill will allow the Minister of Tourism to do virtually whatever he wants as long as he passes a regulation and if Cabinet doesn't agree with the regulation of who should be exempt he can just do it by special direction and there is no limitation on that in this at all. It's very very concerning.I want to table an amendment on this which says Any exemption by special direction under this Act must be reported to Parliament by the Minister with the reasons for the exemption or exemptions and the impact of any exemptions." Now this isn't to say that he shouldn't have the ability to—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The proper process for tabling—I'm on my feet. The member well knows what that is. Until it is tabled and processed he cannot speak to that amendment. Hon TODD McCLAY: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I'm not speaking to this amendment; I'm speaking to—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Oh yes you were. Do not do that.Hon TODD McCLAY: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order the Hon Todd McClay and it better not be questioning my ruling—Hon TODD McCLAY: No it's not questioning your ruling—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —in any way.Hon TODD McCLAY: —but it's helping with your definition of what I was doing Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Sit down. No I made a ruling and the member must follow the correct process. He must not as I said before—and if he questions my ruling again there will be a consequence.Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you Mr Chair. If some member at some time shortly in the very near future should table an amendment in this committee and that amendment should look to have some transparency over the ability that the Minister has—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No no no. The member will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon TODD McCLAY: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What am I withdrawing and apologising for? You weren't clear.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member fully knows well and if he takes another such point of order questioning my ruling he will be leaving the Chamber.Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you Mr Chair. The problem we have with this vague legislation is we have a Minister of Tourism who didn't ask the Minister of Immigration the appropriate questions in Cabinet obviously because he's come down to the Chamber to do it and he's not allowed in the chair because the Government couldn't even work out which Minister should be sitting there and what the Standing Orders are. There lies the problem with rushed legislation.So specifically my questions to the Minister are: when it comes to the ability that this bill will give him under the Act to exempt any person or persons from the obligation to pay all or part of that levy why is there no definition or narrowness of that; will there be a regulation he'll set; will there be any guidance at all or can the Minister just do what he wants? Ultimately it's my view that what is necessary is changes to this bill. There needs to be some scope put into this or restriction that at the very least allows for transparency and that transparency should mean that the Minister by special direction would have to report to Parliament over the reasons for any exemptions.So I ask the Minister: will he commit to do that? Will he commit to making sure that he informs Parliament every time he uses a special direction to exempt people or persons from this tax; and if not why not? If he will why isn't it written in here so that it's clear for all future Ministers; and if he won't how does that speak to transparency? Based on his answer I'll then have to contemplate very carefully what it is this side of the committee should do because I believe this is far far too broad.Coming back to my earlier questions I want to be very specific here so that we don't have to get into whether or not amendments or changes would be needed. Specifically which categories or classes of person will be liable? We've heard outside of this House that he's received information and the Government has published press releases that have said this but there is nothing in here. He's going to set a regulation—he could change his mind; he could have got it wrong. We need to know. It should be much clearer. There shouldn't just be a clause that gives him the ability to set this by regulation; it should be set in here. Perhaps he should have the ability by regulation to change that but ultimately anybody that picks this up would be extremely worried that the cowboys are now in charge because that Minister gets to do whatever he wants. The final part of this—I have been asking—is it "provides exemptions from". This isn't by special direction; the Minister just has that power automatically. It's about the regulation. The Minister can write and pass a regulation on who is exempt and any refunds and it says he has to consult but not the first time. He has to consult any changes but it says specifically in Part 2: consult with whomsoever he deems fit. That isn't responsible and it's not good lawmaking. Yes there should be flexibility to make changes if they're needed but I guarantee changes will have to be made because there will be mistakes along the way because this is rushed. But ultimately if the Minister is saying he has to consult because this is so rushed that the public haven't had the opportunity to come here and follow a proper democratic parliamentary process of a full committee outside of this Chamber then ultimately there should be much more scope and guidance as to whom he has to consult with. He might decide to get up and consult with his Cabinet colleague but as we've just seen he won't do it in Cabinet; he'll come down here and do it in the House by way of a question and that's not how this should be run.We have two Ministers who are responsible for this legislation in as far as policy is concerned. It's been brought to this House by the Minister of Immigration. You have the Minister of Tourism that wants to answer questions but they don't understand the Standing Orders and he's doing it by way of questions. That's really not good enough. This bill is rushed and there will be mistakes."