Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAirports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) BillThird ReadingHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I moveThat the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill be now read a third time. The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill amends policy relating to the funding of international traveller processing services at the border. The bill completes the funding arrangements first agreed with the aviation industry right back in 2004 further refined over the years and finalised by this present Government. I want to start by thanking everyone who has been engaged in the development of this bill over the years who have worked in a very cooperative manner with the Government to reach this point tonight. This includes the work of the Primary Production Committee led by its chairman Shane Ardern and of course I acknowledge the officials and all of those who made submissions on the bill.The bill provides a clear legal basis for the Ministry for Primary Industries the New Zealand Customs Service and the Aviation Security Service to recover the costs associated with providing traveller processing services at new and restarting international airports for a period of either 3 years or any lesser period prescribed in regulations. It also provides that an airport may cease operating international services and then restart them within a 6-month grace period without triggering cost recovery. The bill also provides for cost recovery of non-routine processing at all international airports. The bill’s objective is to reduce the Crown’s exposure to an unpredictable and uncertain fiscal liability for providing aviation security biosecurity and customstraveller processing services at international airports. It ensures that border agencies can maintain higher standards of border protection without needing to reprioritise resources from other front-line operations to service new and restarting international airports.The previous Minister for Primary Industries asked the Primary Production Committee in its consideration of the bill to consider a proposal that the cost recovery period be set at 2 years and to consider industries’ views on this. After hearing the views of submitters on this issue the committee also recommended a cost recovery period of 2 years. A 2-year cost recovery period provides a reasonable measure of confidence in the commercial viability and sustainability of international services at a new or restarting airport before it is transitioned into the funding arrangements for established international airports. At the established international airports biosecurity and customs services are funded by the Crown while Aviation Security Services are funded by a per-passenger charge on airlines. A final decision on the length of the cost recovery period will be made after the bill is passed and will be set out in regulations.The bill provides for regulations to be made before charging can begin for any new or restarting international airports and requires border agency chief executives to consult with directly affected parties before regulations are made. I look forward to officials engaging with the aviation industry on the development of these new regulations. These regulations will prescribe the cost recovery period and the actual rates or methods of cost recovery at new or restarting airports.The bill has received strong support from every political party in the House. I think this fairly reflects the importance that Parliament attaches to aviation security biosecurity and customs-related issues. Protecting our border from biosecurity threats is my No. 1 priority as Minister for Primary Industries.Our primary industries are the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. They include of course agriculture horticulture fisheries forestry and viticulture. The list goes on. They are worth around $32 billion a year in exports and make up about 70 percent of all of our exports. These industries rely on our world-class biosecurity system. It is a system that continues to evolve and improve with technology and new ideas. To give some context around 175000 items come across our border each day and we receive around 10 million travellers a year. Biosecurity threats and incursions will happen. We do not live in a risk-free environment. We will never have zero risk even if we close all of our borders. The challenge is how we continue to facilitate growth and trade yet continue to protect New Zealand from unwanted pests. It cannot be a choice between these two goals. We have to do both—grow and protect.The Ministry for Primary Industries takes a multilayered approach to biosecurity threats working on many fronts—overseas to stop travellers and importers from bringing pests here at the border to identify and eliminate pests that do arrive and here in New Zealand to find eliminate or manage pests. Biosecurity funding is higher now than when we took over from Labour and has doubled since 2000. In the last year and a half around 100 new quarantine inspectors and more dog detector teams are working on the front line. We have 12 new X-ray machines installed at our international airports. These new machines will be more reliable than the older X-ray units and will provide better image quality. Baggage is now able to be screened with greater accuracy and image quality. This means border staff will be better equipped to spot biosecurity risk items before they enter New Zealand. We have also brought in Government-industry agreements which once signed will involve industry and the Government working together on preparation and responses to these kinds of threats.Border protection is a major priority for this Government. This bill reflects that by helping to ensure that border agencies can maintain their high standards of border protection. I commend this bill to the House.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I rise to support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill in its third reading. As the Minister for Primary Industries has said the aim of the bill is to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security biosecurity and customs traveller processing from the operators of new or re-established international airports or international airports that sometimes request that travellers be processed in a non-routine manner. The Minister said in his third reading speech that this bill has had support from parties across the House and that is true. It is also true to say that Labour was involved in developing a similar cost recovery policy back in 2004. There has been a long process of working through these issues. What I found interesting though were the Minister’s comments about how biosecurity is a high priority for this Government given that this bill was introduced in September 2010 had its first reading on 16 September 2011 was referred to the Primary Production Committee and people were given just 1 month to make submissions. In fact in reading the submissions I saw that that was one of the complaints from submitters—that it was a truncated process. I know that there has been a lot of discussion but that was one of the complaints that were made.Again it gives rise to the question which we have traversed before of why this had to happen given that we are now finally reaching the third reading of this bill something like 4 years later. I do question the Government about that. But having said that we all know that biosecurity and customs services come at a huge cost to the Crown and any new international airport should have to pay some of those costs. We already have a high number of international airports per capita. Every one of those international airports requires a replication of biosecurity and customs services at an additional cost to the Government. Our international airports are in Auckland Hamilton Rotorua Wellington Christchurch Dunedin and Queenstown. That is a large number of international airports for a small country like our own.As I said we went through a process of proposing a similar cost recovery process in 2004. We were concerned about the time period and there was a big discussion about that. We do approve the move to lower the cost recovery period to just 2 years as happens under this bill. Although this bill is right to make new international airports pay their fair share of the costs of customs and biosecurity it is about time that the Government started paying fair attention to the issue of biosecurity. There has been an Auditor-General’s report quite recently and it had some pretty damning evidence in it that New Zealand is at risk of a major biosecurity threat because of the Government’s obsession with cutting costs and restructuring. We have seen under this Government a merging of departments and a shuffling of agencies. We have got mega-agencies—super-agencies—under the auspices of Steven Joyce and other Ministers who seem to think that shuffling deckchairs is a good way to look like they are doing something—like that old adage you know that when you do not know what to do you restructure and then it looks like you are actually taking some action.As part of that too of course under this Government there was a restructure in 2010 a restructure in 2011 and a restructure in 2012. I want to just pause here for a minute and pay tribute to the staff on the front line working in biosecurity the Customs Service and the Aviation Security Service who have been trying to do their jobs through all of these restructurings. They are now part of one ministry called the Ministry for Primary Industries. But what we saw during that period between 2008 and 2012 was a cut of 91 biosecurity officers and those dogs—those lovely little dogs that we see when we come through customs—Carol Beaumont: Beagles.DARIEN FENTON: The beagles—the beagles. They cut the number of beagles. I am sure that the member John Banks would have been unhappy about that because he talked about beagles too did he not? He liked beagles.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Was it one of those in the brown bag?DARIEN FENTON: Yes well that is true. I know that since then Nathan Guy was kind of forced to increase the number of biosecurity staff and has actually had some nice photo opportunities with little beagle puppies.Hon Nathan Guy: Clara. Clara was her name.DARIEN FENTON: Yes I saw that in the newsletter. But he was kind of forced to do that because of the risks to our biosecurity—the risks that we are seeing. But the truth is that during that period—Budget 2009—the Government cut $3.5 million from biosecurity over 4 years. Again in 2010 it cut a further $9.5 million over 4 years. So on average this is about $3 million a year from a vote that has around $180 million or $190 million to spend. Indeed the Auditor-General pointed out that there have been cuts in capacity in the appropriations from the years 2007-08 through to 2011-12. So we are looking forward to the forthcoming Budget Minister and we hope we will see some remedies around this issue. Of course in biosecurity almost every week now there is an incursion—Hon Nathan Guy: That was under Labour.DARIEN FENTON: Pardon?Colin King: That was under Labour.DARIEN FENTON: Almost every week under this Government there has been an incursion in our biosecurity. What the Auditor-General was warning about is that a foot-and-mouth outbreak could cost the country something like $13 billion but we are not ready for that. We are not prepared for that. So I hope again that the Minister took that report seriously and that we can look forward to some money in the Budget being put back into those restructured departments back into the staff. That would follow the recommendations of the Auditor-General again who was saying that there needs to be a lot more work done on supporting those staff on training on preparing for a major outbreak that could come any day—we just do not know.Of course what we do know is that Psa disease has had a terrible terrible impact on the kiwifruit industry. The researchers from Lincoln University estimate that by 2015 it will have cost the industry $410 million and approximately 1400 jobs. So the costs to the country are tremendous.Going back to what I said at the beginning we are supporting this bill. There has been a lot of work done on it over many years. We cannot afford to take risks with our biosecurity with customs or with aviation security. They are very very important parts of protecting our border and the cost recovery proposals in this bill along with the grace period that is proposed are supported. I know that the Primary Production Committee did a good job looking at that and I do want to give respects to the member Shane Ardern who I know is a very good committee chair from my experience of working with him.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Not a bad bloke.DARIEN FENTON: Not a bad bloke. In fact I think that it will be a shame when he leaves Parliament. He is one of the decent blokes around this place one of the good people around this place. So I know that he led the select committee through this in a very professional way even though most of the committee members have now left and he will be following them. I am pleased to support this bill.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. This bill has had a reasonably long gestation period but there are fairlygood reasons for that. I should perhaps highlight some of those but not go over all of the issues that the Minister for Primary Industries has already canvassed and perhaps give a little bit of background as to why the bill came about.The airports of both Hamilton which is in my electorate and Palmerston North which is nearby Mr McKelvie’s electorate my colleague to the left here were international airports in New Zealand. They had international carriers that were flying in and out of there and those carriers decided for commercial reasons I presume that they no longer wanted to visit those airports. Of course to be international airports they had to maintain all of the biosecurity civil aviation security and customs services. Of course that carried with it I guess an enormous cost to the State and obviously it was a waste of money if those airports were not going to become international airports again or were not going to become international airports for some time into the future.At the same time that that was happening because of the very work of the National Government—Hon Member: Ha!SHANE ARDERN: —because of the excellent work of the National Government substantial investment was going into new technology for both biosecurity and customs—in fact for the merging of some of that technology. Of course what that would have meant was that those airports would then need to upgrade to the new systems—new X-ray equipment new types of surveillance equipment etc.—and there was a lot of potential expense in that as well.So the motive if you like for a cost recovery programme was that if an airport decided it might like to become an international airport regardless of where it may be—and there are others that have suggested they might like to become international airports—Colin King: Invercargill.SHANE ARDERN: —Rotorua for example and Invercargill is another one that my colleague mentions—then obviously the airport itself in the commercial decision as to whether or not to do that would need to be involved in some of those substantial potential costs to the Crown. Further every time that does happen if that investment is not made to a level that it should be then obviously we expose ourselves to further biosecurity risk and as the Minister quite rightly pointed out and other speakers have touched on it biosecurity risk is a major threat to the New Zealand economy.I heard the previous speaker Darien Fenton say that the Auditor-General identified $30 million. Well I think it may have been $30 billion. It is more like $30 million a day—the likely cost of a foot-and-mouth outbreak for example. So it is something that would actually devastate the New Zealand economy. It reinforces as the Minister for Primary Industries and biosecurity said the importance of our primary sector to the New Zealand economy but it also reinforces the vulnerability of the sector to something getting across the border that could have that type of devastating effect.So the main provisions of the bill as the Minister pointed out are to recover costs in the areas of aviation security biosecurity and customs. On the basis that these issues have to be addressed using the best technologies the best systems and the best surveillance I think that this is a very sound measure brought forward obviously by a very competent Minister and a very sound Government in this fight against biosecurity and other airport or border-type issues. So I totally support the passage of this bill. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Thank you and likewise Mr Assistant Speaker.Hon Member: You’ve known each other for a while.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We have indeed. As colleagues on both sides of the House have said there is quite a bit of unanimity in respect of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. The aim as we know is to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security biosecurity and customs traveller processing from operators of new or re-established international airports. I would also acknowledge Shane Ardern having sat on the Primary Production Committee in its more lively days. He is one member who I think should have been put in higher office many years ago. He more than most knows the impact both positive and negative of biosecurity on his industry.But I would say this. There has been a trend with this Government—a sort of obsession—of constant restructuring. There has been a Government obsession of course with merging. Biosecurity New Zealand has been through two restructurings under this Government and is now part of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I know that my colleague Damien O’Connor has expressed quite a bit of concern around that where you have a sort of poacher and gamekeeper amalgamated together. We do know—and I am sure Mr Ardern will help me out—that it almost seems like a monthly or weekly occurrence that we have another incursion. I heard on the radio that there is some other fly or flea or something else that has got in.Although I accept that we have a huge border a massive geographical border to protect and we are close to our Australian cousins—who have a few more gremlins than we do in New Zealand—the point is this: there has to be an obsession not simply with constant restructuring and saving a few quid here and there but with actually reinforcing the work and the resources of those agencies and people who have the ultimate responsibility to protect the border. We talk about for instance physical violence and terrorism in that form. What is of possibly even greater threat some would say is if you like biosecurity terrorism. Mr Ardern and others have said that if somebody was to implant foot-and-mouth or some other horrible disease here and decimate our dairy our beef or our other sectors it is almost game over especially in dairying which is a major part of our economy. So terrorism comes in many forms. Likewise with no deliberate act people coming across our borders bring in things they should not and bring in things that they are ignorant of without any malice intended but again it poses threats.I do recall sitting on the Primary Production Committee in the first term I was in Parliament. I am sure that Mr Ardern will recall this. As Labour took office we had a great debate over the former National Government shifting resources. I think that at that point it was away from container surveillance. I am sure that Mr Ardern recalls the debate when money was shifted around by the then National Government. It penny-pinched here and penny-pinched there. I think it was away from airport security—no it was away from container surveillance into airport biosecurity. I think we did an inquiry on it as I recall and massive risks were identified around the random nature—as it was then—of container surveillance.There are some very good Kiwi companies. The company that I recall in Christchurch—is it Syft Technologies? I think it is. Mr Ardern nods. Syft Technologies as I understand it has developed for many years—Hon Trevor Mallard: Been there.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: So have I.Hon Trevor Mallard: Good company.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is a good company.Hon Trevor Mallard: You might’ve taken me.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I possibly did. I may have used its technology to have you checked out biosecurity-wise Mr Mallard. But it has a—Hon Trevor Mallard: It was more comfortable than the normal method.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. That company developed sniff technology I think it was called. To put it in layman’s terms because I am not a technical expert with this technology you can bang this box inside a container and for instance it can take a sniff of the air. It can tell you whether any sort of biological organism is alive or dead in there and it can identify where there is a threat. That may be why the new ACT leader has imported some of the technology for his caucus room.The interesting thing at that point was that I remember visiting the business and Biosecurity New Zealand and the Customs Service at the time would not use the technology. In fact I do not think it is being used today.Hon Member: A different type is.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: A different type of technology. I know that at the time one of the biggest contracts for Syft was Biosecurity Australia. The Australians used it before us. So maybe there are a few lessons there that technology should be taken on board—and good old Kiwi technology could be taken on board—because the Aussies were a bit smarter than us. They used it and I recall that our Biosecurity New Zealand guys at the time in late 1999 when we embarked on this inquiry were still doing very very random container surveillance—extremely random. I think we went down and had a look at some of it and it was almost like trying to profile what may be a risk in a container and away you go. There was also an issue over the wooden pallets that were being brought in which were having very little if any inspection. So it is not just airports.I say to the Government that we support the legislation but I think it has to get serious—very very serious—about the nature and constant restructuring of our biosecurity agencies. Is it right that the Ministry for Primary Industries and food safety poacher and gamekeeper are in one? I do not think it is. I share Damien O’Connor’s view. I think you have got to have some separation. Perhaps the difficulties that Fonterra has been through—a different set of difficulties but food safety and to some extent biosecurity as well—show that there is a deficiency and a weakness in having those organisations married up together. Sure you want cooperation and you want synergy but there has to be some sort of tension between those authorities to ensure that our borders are protected and that they are protected rigorously. So I look forward to the debate as we go through this legislation.Of course there will have to be infrastructure and dollars put around this. Staff will have to be trained. There has to be a bigger commitment as my colleague Darien Fenton said to staff training and skilling. I often wonder and I recall again that when I was on the select committee there was an issue raised about the old-fashioned Air New Zealand stewards and stewardesses who in the old days would come through with the aerosol can—remember? They would walk right down the aisle. I remember one submitter saying that the best advertisement or wake-up call for people getting off the plane—those from foreign countries who did not quite get how serious it was—was somebody going down the aisle spraying. Even if they were spraying I do not know water—who cares? It was a wake-up call to people.Hon Trevor Mallard: It was on the flying boats.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Pardon?Hon Trevor Mallard: The flying boats went from Evans Bay.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. Thank you Trevor Mallard. Trevor is approaching his 75th year and recounting history. But this is serious. The point is that that is a wake-up call to people.I lived in Perth for a time and each state has biosecurity arrangements. I know that in Western Australia you could not bring in honey and other products. It was almost like you lived in another country when you went across those borders either by air or by rail—very serious. In other countries you go to there are no biosecurity protections. If you go to the States you are asked “What are you bringing in?” you say: “X Y and Z.” and there is very little checking if any in the States. Certainly in parts of Europe like—Julie Anne Genter: That’s not trueHon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes it is. I have just come through Los Angeles airport in the last couple of weeks and apart from ticking a box there were no beagles; nobody was profiling bags. It was not as rigorous—Darien Fenton: There’s a few guns.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: There are a few guns yes but it was not nearly as rigorous as in New Zealand. So we want to see those standards maintained and enhanced so that we do not have the problems of other countries.We are exceptionally vulnerable. We are an island State. We are predominantly dependent on agriculture. As I said and I endorse the other speakers who have made the point one major biosecurity threat—even if it does not come off—again dents our reputation. We have had foot-and-mouth scares that thankfully have not come to anything but even then our reputation and our exports are at risk because people ask questions and people get concerned. The Fonterra experience though different should teach us a lot about how our reputation our New Zealand brand is at risk through these types of threats. So I support the bill and I look forward to its further scrutiny as we go forward.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As the Green Party spokesperson on transport it is my pleasure to rise to take a call on the third reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. This bill has been around for quite some time. In fact it went through the select committee process before I was elected to Parliament. I think this bill was one of the first ones that I sat down and wrote a speech for after being elected to Parliament. So it was about 2 years ago that I first sat down and looked at it.This bill has only just made it to the Committee of the whole House and the third reading in the year 2014 which is somewhat astonishing but I am sure that that is for good reason other than the Government not being able to manage its legislative programme—that is possibly one of the reasons; I am not sure. We support this bill. The first reading speech was given by my former colleague Sue Kedgley who is now a regional councillor for Wellington and my current colleague Gareth Hughes gave the second reading speech. As they made clear and I would like to reiterate the Green Party is supporting this bill. It is uncontroversial. It takes some positive steps in the direction of supporting our biosecurity which many speakers have already talked about this evening. Also we quite approve of the approach of cost recovery—that is internalising some of the costs that would otherwise be externalised and pushed on to taxpayers.New Zealanders value our natural environment. New Zealanders really value our beautiful forests lakes rivers oceans and beaches and I think most New Zealanders if not all of them do want to protect them. They recognise that there is an intrinsic value and it is something that hits right here in the gut. It is something that you cannot really summarise or quantify in a complete way. But it is also possible to quantify the benefits the economic benefits—some of them—of looking after biosecurity. This essential element of our defence against environmental degradation and ensuring that we do not introduce pests and diseases is really important because it is vital not only to preservingthe natural environment that we value for intrinsic reasons but also to ensuring the continued strength of our primary production base.New Zealand’s competitive advantage in the world is really its“clean green” brand and much of our success overseas selling our dairy products to China or promoting tourism around the globe is because we are perceived to have a pristine natural environment. So it is in our economic interest to genuinely look after that environment to invest money if need be in protecting the environment and to ensure that things like biosecurity are at the forefront.But I think that this bill probably does not go as far as it could in looking after all of the potential ways that we could be protecting our environment responding to the challenge of climate change and internalising external costs. The bill obviously has a very narrow focus. It is looking at the processing of international travellers and how we are going to fund that and ensure that we have the means for funding the processing of international travellers. But there are other considerations that arise when we are thinking about how we can look after our “clean green” brand protect our environment and internalise some of those external costs.Unfortunately even though aviation has enormous benefits for humanity—and I personally have benefited greatly from the ability to travel easily and quickly between continents; it is something that is a unique privilege really that not many human beings have gotten to experience in the history of humanity—it also has some costs and particularly in terms of carbon emissions. It is something that may not be able to grow indefinitely. We are going to have to find alternative means of travelling and it may take a little bit more time. We may be able to create alternative fuels that are not going to have such a negative impact on the climate but we are not going to be able to do that unless we put a proper price on carbon.It is absolutely essential that we start to put a price on the harmful emissions that are changing our climate because until we do that the market is not going to respond. People are not going to come up with the alternatives. Humans are incredibly innovative and able to adapt and that is why it is so important for Government policy to take the step of putting an appropriate price on carbon emissions. That is what is going to incentivise solutions. It is going to create a market for coming up with alternative fuels that do not have such a harmful impact on the climate.Unfortunately this Government has not really taken steps that would ensure there is a price on carbon. It says that it is going to respond to climate change. I have yet to see any evidence of any real national coordinated approach even to adaptation to a changing climate which is something that could potentially cost us. If we are going to have increased flooding and increased droughts we need to be preparing for that now. We need to be ensuring that the infrastructure we are putting in place is going to protect our communities in the future given that we know that the climate will be changing.But in addition to that we need to do our fair share in the world of reducing carbon emissions. The best way to do that is to give people alternatives and invest in alternatives. For New Zealanders many of the trips that we make around New Zealand and internationally obviously cannot be easily replaced with another form of transport other than aviation. But most of our carbon emissions from transport are generated in travel in and around our towns and cities. That is where we have the real opportunity. The Government could be investing in alternatives such as safe walking and cycling and public transport—all things that not only reduce carbon emissions but create a more liveable city for people and reduce the money that people have to spend just to travel. Most trips at peak time are quite short distances—less than 5 kilometres—and it is entirely possible to replace those with walking cycling or public transport if the infrastructure is there. It is much more affordable obviously.So on the one hand we have got to invest in alternatives where those are available and on the other hand we also need to internalise the costs. This bill for example internalises the costs of international processing and puts it back on to the people who are travelling. They are the ones who have to pay for the processing—it is not the taxpayers—and so should those who are generating carbon emissions and contributing to harmful climate change have to pay the price of that.If people are facing the true cost of their choices they are able to weigh up the costs and make the decision that makes the most sense to them. For example for me to do my job unfortunately at the moment I have to fly between Auckland and Wellington because there is no alternative really particularly because the passenger train has now been reduced to 3 days a week. There is no overnight train and there is no high-speed train like we might have in another country.I would happily pay that price. If paying that additional cost of the carbon emissions was going to provide the Government with more money to potentially invest in alternatives that would make it easier potentially to travel without generating carbon emissions or to invest in research into biodiesel alternatives. The Green Party supports this bill. We understand that it is incredibly important to look after our biosecurity. It is something that the Green Party has long championed and it is wonderful to see the bill passed in the House this evening.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I can just remember that I am supposed to be speaking but it is very hard to remember what I should be speaking about because 8½ of the last 10 minutes covered nothing remotely related to the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.This bill came about primarily because of the closure of Iain Lees-Galloway’s Palmerston North Airport to international flights. People were very concerned at the ramifications of that and lobbied the Government. Actually there is a clause in the bill that specifically deals with the ability of those airports to renew those international flights within 6 months without losing their services. However all that I could add to this debate has already been so eloquently said by Minister Guy and Shane Ardern the very competent chairman of the Primary Production Committee. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill—which admittedly is in its dying stages—even though it is not a piece of legislation that New Zealand First has had the opportunity to make input into. This is a shame because if we had we could perhaps have brought some common sense and a degree of sanity to what is yet another example of poorly thought-through lawmaking on the part of this Government.This is short-sighted legislation. It is misguided in its intentions and driven by a grasping mentality. Like much of this Government’s biosecurity agenda it places too much reliance on unproven technology and questionable techniques at the expense of front-line officers with years of experience and actual boots on the ground. This bill has obviously not been regarded as a crucial piece of this Government’s agenda coming through as it has from the 49thParliament rising and falling on the Order Paper for most of the 50th Parliament and limping through finally to the stage where we are about to sign it off.Similar to my Green colleague who spoke earlier Julie Anne Genter I confess I wrote the nuts and bolts of this speech about 2 years ago. I had to go back through it again to find out why we were opposed to the bill. I am happy to report that our reasons are still sound. In essence New Zealand First does not really object to the Government attempting to recover costs associated with screening passengers who are entering NewZealand through new and reopened airports and through new and low-volume ports of entry for biosecurity and other risks if these costs are materially over and above that which could normally be expected.We have some misgivings that this approach picks on the little guy and that the provinces are marginalised by it the smaller airports the regional airports such as Palmerston North Airport in the same way that this Government appears to regard much of the heartland as an irritant and an encumbrance rather than as the vitally important—indeed the essential—core of New Zealand’s agriculture and tourism-based economy that it actually is. Perhaps the National Party has forgotten its roots as part of the process of selling its soul to the free-market economics of neo-liberal ideology.But I digress—I digress just a little. We do not really object as I say to the Government attempting to recover costs where they have been incurred unreasonably or outside the scope of expected norms. We would question however how far the concept of user-pays is destined to proceed while general taxation continues. Will there come a time when every last dollar of Government expenditure is matched by a direct recovery of costs in some form or another? And yet general taxation continues unabated alongside it. We would question also the Government’s rationale in claiming that it must recover costs from new airports restarted airports and low-volume airports because operators of those airports are able to commence operations bring passengers into New Zealand and expose New Zealand to potential biosecurity risks without regard to the cost that such operations will necessarily impose on the nation’s border agencies the Customs Service the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Aviation Security Service. Mentioning the ministry dates this speech. It no longer exists; it is now the Ministry for Primary Industries.New Zealand First asks why when it is the Government itself that should be licensing and approving the activation and operation of these newer and smaller airports the Government does not take these costs into consideration when it is making the decision to allow any such new airport or point of entry to commence operations. Is this yet another case of deregulation and self-regulation of industry along the lines that we have seen with the likes of leaky buildings and Pike River?Even under these circumstances New Zealand First is not expecting the passage of this bill through the House to be arrested by our protests regarding it. It is a fait accompli that this bill will pass into law because the Government that is sponsoring it has the necessary numbers in order to make it happen. This we accept and this is why we regret that we were not able to make input into its early stages. We are voting against it because in action it will serve to reinforce bad practices at the border. It will make the Government’s current faulty direction in terms of biosecurity even worse. If the Government was intending in any way to focus its efforts on a regime of proper and effective biosecurity measures at the border we would have less opposition to it. But it is becoming apparent that this Government has no such intention. New Zealand’s biosecurity is becoming less robust and more threatened at every turn.Officers at the border are demoralised and disenchanted by the direction in which the Government is heading with regard to the treatment of biosecurity risks. They are struggling to understand why the ultimate responsibility for New Zealand’s safety and security should rest with them when at every level of authority and management above them such responsibility is being abdicated. There are insufficient dog teams available to service our ports of entry and officers complain frequently and with genuine concern about chronic and unaddressed understaffing. These shortcomings are being made in favour of scanners profiling and most disturbingly SmartGate—which as any frequent traveller will attest should be more accurately described as “DumbGate”given that it allows for the potential to admit all and any biosecurity risks without any recourse to interception or redress at all.Ian McKelvie: You’re rabbiting on a bit.RICHARD PROSSER: If this Government’s desire to recover the cost of biosecurity—I am just looking after your patch Mr McKelvie—screening at the previously described ports of entry was to be used to provide for adequate screening methods and effective interception of unidentified risk factors New Zealand First would be less opposed to the bill. But while this cynical money-grubbing exercise disadvantages provincial areas in the way that it does and does not address New Zealand’s actual and real biosecurity needs as it should New Zealand First remains opposed to the bill. Thank you.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to be part of the third reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. I would like the House to appreciate that my short contribution is no reflection on the importance of biosecurity and the customs and excise side of things.One thing that has not yet been mentioned is the cost. In each of those cases where there are efforts to start up an international airport it costs about $2 million. As we look at the high-tech situation that is employed and involved today around airport technology whether it is sniffer dogs or X-ray it is highly costly to resettle and train staff and to move families.I believe that this bill is just a good business function and that those people who are going to set up such a business of international arrivals in airports at their terminals will put this in their business case and adjust it accordingly. I have great pleasure in supporting this bill.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kei te pai.RINO TIRIKATENE: I am very pleased to add my contribution to the third reading of this bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. We on this side of the House support this bill. We have supported this bill throughout. Like my colleagues I believe I spoke at the Committee stage of this bill which must have been over 2 years ago now. So I had to really reach back and think about what this bill was all about. But here we are nearly 4 years after it was introduced and we are on the home stretch. We are actually going to get it passed. It is a very reasonable piece of legislation and we do support it.We want to make sure that the Crown does not have to foot the bill for the processing costs of all international travellers and for all of the interactions that take place at our borders. It is fair for our airport operators to. Our main international airports are substantial operations. They are multinational listed companies. Some have substantial public ownership or local authority ownership. They are effectively public companies and I think it is fair that—given the investment that is required in terms of aviation security the New Zealand Customs Service and most important biosecurity—those big airport operators do contribute to non-routine processing in this case. We know that they are well-established operators and have been since they have been in operation so it is fair that they contribute their fair share towards those processing costs.I am very proud. I have heard contributions from around the House this evening about international airports in certain electorates and I am pleased to say that my electorate has the most international airports here in New Zealand. We have got Wellington Christchurch Dunedin and Queenstown so there are plenty there. Unfortunately I do not get Palmerston North which is Mr Lees-Galloway’s. I understand that it cut out a few years ago but hopefully it will come back.Iain Lees-Galloway: They’ll be back.RINO TIRIKATENE: It will be back. It will be back. There are plenty of international airports in my rohe. I am very proud of that. I have been around most of them. I have not actually done international travel through them but I know that it is very important especially to the South Island economy that we get our international travellers travelling to and from those international airports.I would also say that this legislation also encompasses new or re-established international airports. We have mentioned Palmerston North which will hopefully come back online very soon but we could also arguably—Iain Lees-Galloway: It still works; it just hasn’t got international flights.RINO TIRIKATENE: It does work and I understand that it does take the overflow and that when flights are diverted it still takes those international flights. So in a way you could say that it is still a type of international airport. It helps Wellington out every now and then.We could say that we are looking at the future and hopefully at the growth of our passenger numbers in our regions especially. But arguably there is another international airport depending on whom you talk to. I am talking about another amazing place in my great electorate and that is the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands is a very small community but they do regard the mainland as New Zealand and they are very much staunchly proud of the fact that they are Chatham Islanders. I thought that I would give that great community a little shout-out this evening. They do have big aspirations over there and hopefully—you never know—one day they might have an international airport there themselves.Getting back to this bill we do support it. We have seen a lot of innovations I guess in recent years in terms of processing. SmartGate is one of them as well as the advanced profiling of passengers who are coming through our borders. But we must not overlook the fact that you cannot beat having people on our borders having well-resourced border security especially our biosecurity system.Darien Fenton: Beagles too.RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes absolutely. I do not see many of them these days but we need to have those cute little but very very highly trained beagles that do the sniff test for illicit drugs or whatever other illegal items that certain passengers may be carrying.I do want to give a special acknowledgment to those fine men and women in our New Zealand Customs Service and the biosecurity service for the work they do. I say this in many of my speeches but they do defend our pā. They defend Aotearoa. They defend it from biosecurity incursions and those nasty bugs or whatever nasties they might be that might come in that could potentially decimate—decimate—our primary sector especially our export sector which we are so highly reliant on.So it is important that we do make sure that there is a well-resourced biosecurity service. We can benefit from technology but you cannot lose sight of the fact that we also do need well-trained and well-resourced people on the front line who do their job to protect our borders.I would also just like to pick up on Mr Prosser’s comment because I know he was talking about how my colleagues over here in New Zealand First are opposing the bill. That is regrettable but I do acknowledge Mr Prosser’s entertaining speech.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It was another incursion.RINO TIRIKATENE: Indeed it was another incursion. I think Mr Prosser maybe needs to look back in history to the time when Auckland International Airport was sold and to the Minister—or one of the Ministers—at the time who actually signed off on that prospectus. That Minister was the Rt Hon Winston Peters. So that party has played a key part in terms of the privatisation of our international airports.Denis O’Rourke: That’s nonsense.RINO TIRIKATENE: It is a fact. I will table the prospectus of that international airport of which Mr Peters was the Treasurer at the time if I can get my hands on it. I recall these things because I was part of an army of lawyers at the time that was doing a lot of the legal work behind the scenes in that initial public offering.Denis O’Rourke: You need to give that a bit more thought. You need to research just a little bit more so you get your facts right.RINO TIRIKATENE: I am just saying that the Auckland International Airport float was actually during the time when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was the Minister who signed the prospectus.He was one of two Ministers who actually did that.But I digress—I digress. I want to get back to this bill. This is a very reasonable bill. It is a reasonable bill because we do not want these largely overseas-owned floated international airport operators to be getting a free ride off the taxpayer. I think it is fair—and I think that every Kiwi has a sense of fairness—that the operators should pay their fair share. We know that a lot of the operators are very profitable and a lot of those profits are going straight back to wherever their institutional shareholders come from whether it is the US whether it is Australia or whether it is anywhere around the world. So with the fact that they can generate their profits through the benefit of having to operate their airport and process all the travellers it is certainly fair that those airport operators have to pay their fair share.I would just like to make a final comment. I think that what could actually benefit our processing of international travellers would be to have a 10-year passport. I know that that was raised in front of a select committee today. I think Kiwis do deserve it. We need to revert back to the 10-year passport. It is a lot fairer on everybody. If you take 5 years really that 5 years is condensed to only 4½ years of actual use of that passport. It is an ever-increasing cost. I think that our good hard-working citizens out there who do want to travel should get a fair go and revert to the good old 10-year passport whereby they can get good passage around the world under our highly respected passports. That would be a great gesture. I know that it is something that this side of the House will definitely be looking into. That concludes my speech. Kia ora tātou.Dr JIAN YANG (National): Ni hao. I support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Thank you.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker. I am not sure whether I am going to be sharing my 5 minutes with the Green Party but I will take it anyway and see what happens. I rise to support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill as we have agreed. We support it for the reason that this is an appropriate development. International airports are important for our country. We support it for the reason that it is important that if these international airports are going to be established in other regions we should ensure that they have a resource in terms of protecting our borders with customs officials etc.My electorate has the Auckland Airport which is one of the busiest international airports of New Zealand. I refer to it as the gateway to New Zealand and the gateway to the nation the land of the young beautiful and gifted which is a reflection of the make-up of that particular community. I know that my colleagues who were in the former Labour Government prided themselves on the fact that we took care of that and ensured that the resources and facilities were available at the airport to ensure that our borders were well protected. That was an important aspect of our vision for the future. You will recall that since this Government came into power we have questioned the way that it has cut funding to resources particularly at the customs level. We have questioned the way that under its watch we have had the Psa disease which has hurt ourkiwifruit farmers. More recently there has been a fruit fly found in our regions. That is of significant concern and I know that my colleague Damien O’Connor raised consistently with the Minister of Customs—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: And agriculture.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —and agriculture—how the cutting of the funding when National came into Government has hurt our borders in that particular regard.Airports are important and I know that in the last 5 years we have had significant numbers of New Zealanders use those airports to fly away—to flee from this country.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A thousand a week is it?Su’a WILLIAM SIO: About a thousand a week—52000 in the last year or so all flying to Australia. Although they have been using the new facility SmartGate they could not wait to get out of this country since this Government came into power. I know that 52000 Kiwis have fled our shores for a better life out there in Australia. Even though this Government has in the last day or two trumpeted how the economic recovery seems to have improved our employment rate if those 52000 New Zealanders were to return to our shores I think we would be in a much worse state than the Government makes it out to be.I have a cousin who is leaving our shores for Australia unfortunately. She is married and has three children. Her oldest son is working. The three of them working have been able to support their family pay the mortgage and ensure that the younger kids get supported in their sports activities in their school. Last year my cousin’s husband lost his job out in Howick as I think a printer. As a result of losing that job despite the fact that his wife and their oldest son were working they could not afford to maintain their mortgage despite the low interest rates that we are experiencing. As a result in the last 2 or 3 months the husband has travelled to Melbourne to try to find work there. He has recently come back has got a job there and is now ready to move his entire family to live in Melbourne. They will not appreciate my naming them in the House but I am quite saddened by the fact that despite us trying to convince them to stay they do not believe any of the rhetoric that this Government has said. They do not believe any of the promises about the brighter future. That is why they are leaving New Zealand to go to Australia.Can you blame them? Can you blame the 52000 New Zealanders who have left our shores to try to find a better life in Australia? Despite this Government trumpeting and celebrating the improvement in our economic affairs I think a large proportion of working class communities—everyday New Zealanders—are not able to celebrate that recovery. Overall our Government is celebrating the drop in unemployment at 6 percent but I think if you look for example to the Pacific communities it still remains high at 13.7 percent. It is even worse for our young people. For our young people—Hon Maurice Williamson: And this has got what to do with cost recovery at airports?Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Absolutely airports—we are talking about economic development OK? People getting jobs people not getting jobs. As the Minister has intervened I do want to say that since he has been the Minister of Customs there have been regular complaints which I have referred to the Minister often from the Muslim communities who have been accosted at the airport. On one occasion I did ask the Minister whether he could assist in this because what happens is when somebody dies in the Muslim community protocols will permit that the dead be allowed to lie only for a certain number of days—Hon Member: One day.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: One day; that is right. So when a parent or somebody dear to them dies they are off. They are off. They are at the airport buying a ticket getting onthe first plane in and getting on the first plane to return. Often our officials looking at that get suspicious but the reality is that because of cultural customs they must do that so often these trips are never planned. I know that we raised it with the Minister asking whether he could do something about certain individuals being blocked off at the airport and being investigated for suspicion simply because they have not planned those trips. Well you cannot plan for somebody dying. So particularly in Muslim culture that is important. I know that the Minister has struggled with that. He has struggled with understanding that culture just as this Government has struggled to try to convince the rest of the country that things are better.Things are not better. Things are not better. All you have to do is look at the card. Look at this card that was released today by the Salvation Army. Look. Air New Zealand also prides itself on saying that it is a No. 1 airline—top of its game—but sadly we cannot say that about this Government. It got a D for child poverty not an A. It got a D. Unlike Air New Zealand it got a D. Children—it got a C-. Anyway I am disappointed that I have had to speak to this particular bill. There are so many things that we could have been talking about. We could have been talking about a better vision for this country where everybody benefits and where everybody is able to get the opportunities to get ahead. Instead we are talking about a bill that is as narrow as the arrogance of this particular Government. Thank you.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am enormously proud to support this bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.Bill read a third time.