Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House, and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move, That the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Well, we’ve just witnessed what I believe they call a bold move. That is the Opposition—or certainly the National Party Opposition—attempting to slow down the Government’s efforts to ensure that we provide relief to motorists who are facing increased transport costs as a result of international pressures. I do acknowledge other parties across the House for their support in according urgency, and am very surprised that the National Party wants to delay that relief going to those people who pay road-user charges (RUCs). I’m sure that they’ll be up to explaining that to the heavy vehicles sector and other diesel users, who might be a little bit surprised by that bold move by the National Party and their new transport spokesperson. But good on them; I wish them luck.

On 14 March, the Government moved swiftly and announced reductions to petrol excise duty by 25c per litre. This was in response to significant increases in fuel prices that have been experienced here in New Zealand and around the world. These pressures have been experienced internationally for two significant reasons. The very first is well known to members of the House and people across the country, and that is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has put serious pressure on international fuel prices. We saw them spike extremely quickly following the development of tensions and then Russia’s illegal and abhorrent actions in that country. That conflict is likely to persist for some time, and we see that those pressures will therefore persist for some time for people who use petrol across our economy and our society.

But secondly, the global recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic has, generally speaking, seen demand for petrol around the world exceed what was expected at this time. So the combination of both increased demand and a shock to supply has seen those petrol prices really shoot up all around the world, and we have seen Governments around the world look to address this in a range of ways. Our Government, of course, has been very focused on the broader set of issues that New Zealanders face around cost increases. That’s why some of our recent decisions around increases to the minimum wage, the 1 April increases to a range of Working for Families payments and other payments, have been really helpful in terms of helping to take the edge off some of those pressures that people are facing. But we have been acutely aware of the sharp increase in transport costs in particular.

The 25c reduction to fuel excise duty that we put into effect—and I think the date, from memory, was 14 March—we decided at Cabinet that day, I signed off the regulation that afternoon, Her Excellency the Governor-General then confirmed it through Order in Council, and it took effect from midnight that night. It was turned around very quickly indeed and it has seen the biggest fall in petrol prices that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has ever observed in their monitoring of petrol prices. I’ve had some incredibly good feedback from New Zealanders right across the country about how that has helped. It hasn’t taken away all of the cost pressures that New Zealanders face, but they’ve seen the Government responding and making a positive change that has really helped people with some of those back-pocket costs that we know they’re facing. It’s worth noting—I’ll come back to the cost a little bit later, but that has had a real impact for someone, for example, filling up their tank, a 60-litre tank once a week, that’s a $15 saving immediately.

At the same time, of course, we also moved to reduce public transport costs. They’ve been halved for that three-month period as well. And again, there’s fantastic feedback about that; it’s making a difference. It’s reducing the cost pressures and giving people a really great opportunity to give public transport a go. This bill complements those measures and brings in reductions to road-user charges.

It is just worth confirming—for people who don’t spend as much time in the minutiae of how these things work—the difference between fuel excise duty and road-user charges. For people who do purchase diesel, the road-user charge is not, effectively, built into the petrol charge like a fuel excise duty that people who fill up with 91 or 96 have—you know, when you fill up your tank with 91 or 96, the cost of the fuel excise duty is, effectively, built into that, and it’s a charge per litre of petrol that that person purchases. For those people who use diesel, the road-user charge is purchased in advance. It’s not a part of the diesel price and it’s not a per litre price, so it’s much more complicated. It’s set based on distance and weight, and there are, in fact, about 200 different rates of road-user charge that apply to different vehicles depending on their weight and sometimes on the way that axel load is distributed. So it’s a much more complex process to be able to apply a reduction across road-user charges. The decision that Cabinet made was to apply an equivalent reduction in those road-user charges for people who do have to purchase RUC. Effectively, when you do the maths, the 25c reduction on fuel excise duty works out to about a 36 percent reduction. So what is reflected in the piece of legislation that is before the House is a 36 percent reduction that applies across those 200 or so rates of road-user charge. So there’ll be a proportionate reduction no matter what kind of road-user charge licence a person purchases, whether it’s a light vehicle, a heavy vehicle, a bus, or whatever it is.

It’s also the case that, as compared to fuel excise duty, which can just be changed through Order in Council, it is not as simple for the road-user charge, and that’s why this piece of legislation is before the House. There was a protection that’s built into the Road User Charges Act, which sees that before any change is made to a road-user charge rate, there must be 42 days of notice that is provided. Now, primarily, that is provided to protect the sector and give notice where there might be increases to the rate of road-user charges. It wasn’t particularly contemplated, I don’t think, at that time that there might be a significant decrease of this kind. So if we want to provide the benefit of the reduction in road-user charge, we do need this legislative intervention if we want to bring it in as soon as possible—and certainly earlier than that 42 days of notice that we have to provide under the current Act.

So, effectively, what the bill will do is it will shortcut that 42 days of notice that I’ve just outlined, and it also includes provisions which allow us to apply that 36 percent reduction across the whole suite of rates that are otherwise set in regulations. It is just worth commenting on what the quantum of reduction is here and how it will benefit New Zealanders. For someone who purchases 1,000 kilometres of road-user charge for a typical light vehicle, the cost will go down from $76 to $49—that’s a $27 saving. For a person who was purchasing 5,000 kilometres, it would be a $135 saving, so that is a real contribution to assisting people and tackling some of those pressures.

What is also built into the bill are safeguards in order to prevent unreasonable and excessive purchasing of road-user charges at the reduced rate that will apply for the three-month period. The three-month period described in the bill kicks in from 21 April, and the intention of this legislation is that people are able to purchase at the reduced rate for a three-month period. The intention is not that people can load up and purchase at the increased rate for a longer period. Now, we do not expect that New Zealanders would be likely to do that, but it is important that we do have some basic safeguard that is put into the bill.

So, firstly, modelled on an existing provision in the Road User Charges Act, the bill does include a provision that any road-user charges for a heavy vehicle that is purchased while the reduced rate is in place become invalid one month after the temporary reduction period. So that’s a provision that’s already in the Road User Charges Act that continues to apply to this reduced rate for the purposes of heavy vehicles. That’s quite a strong safeguard. That means that the heavy sector is not able to, effectively, load up at the lower rate. I wouldn’t expect that to happen, but there’s the protection that’s in place there.

Secondly, the bill draws on the existing assessment provisions in the Road User Charges Act, giving Waka Kotahi, as the collector, the power to issue assessments and invoices for purchases that they deem to be excessive or unreasonable or abusive of the scheme’s intent. This is really important in terms of the integrity. It will mean that Waka Kotahi can review those purchases and—taking reasonable factors into account if they do believe that there’s been excessive or unreasonable purchasing—they’ll be able to issue an invoice so that that person does not receive the benefit of that unreasonable or excessive purchasing.

I’m very pleased that the Government is able to bring this bill to the House. It is part of our response to the cost of living pressures that New Zealanders are facing. We are moving forward quickly to provide that relief. We have already, through a range of measures to fuel excise duty, reduced public transport, and a range of other supports that we’ve provided. This will be an important complement to that, and I look forward to its swift passage through the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill. The National Party, while we will be supporting this piece of legislation, will not be supporting the urgency motion, because, guess what? This was policy on the hoof by a Government reacting to a bad poll, trying to find a way to ease the cost of living. And guess what? This policy does not do what New Zealanders actually need it to do and does not go far enough.

The Minister talked about this legislation being needed urgently to deal with the 42-day requirement for notice of new road-user charge (RUC) rates. Well, I tell you what—I’ve just done the calculation and this policy was announced on 14 March and it won’t be implemented under this legislation until 21 April, and that is 38 days. So all that we’re doing here is saving four days. What’s the Minister been doing for the last three weeks? If this was policy that was well-thought-through and was something that was actually being seriously considered in response to the war in Ukraine, the Minister would have had this legislation before Parliament weeks ago to actually make sure that New Zealanders could get relief at the petrol pump and could get relief if they drive diesel vehicles.

Let me also put some other dates out there for the Minister. The explanatory note of the bill says that this bill is responding to the fuel price increase around the world following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Well, I just looked at the calendar and the Russian invasion started on 24 February, and the announcement wasn’t made until 14 March. Well, that’s about another 20 days. But what happened in between those two dates? On 10 March, out came a very bad poll for the Government. So what are we doing here?

The explanatory note of the bill says the bill is about responding to the fuel crisis around the world. Actually, this was about responding to a poll that had National ahead of Labour for the first time in two years, and this Government was desperately looking in their drawer for something they could pull out, and they said, “Oh, I know what we’ll do. We’ll make an announcement and then we’ll think about the details later.” Well, I tell you, this piece of legislation—whilst we support providing this relief to taxpayers because they deserve it and they are suffering from a cost of living crisis—does not go the distance that’s required to actually address those cost of living pressures. This is a temporary piece of legislation. It is something that only deals with the issue in a very small manner but doesn’t actually address the fundamental issues that New Zealanders are facing.

Rents are up $150 per week under this Government. That didn’t happen because of the Ukraine crisis and the war in Ukraine. Fruit and vegetable prices are up. Inflation is at 5.9 percent, and that was before the invasion of Ukraine—that happened and now they’re saying, “Well, actually, we’re going to blame it all on Ukraine.” Well, this Government needs to take some responsibility. This cost of living crisis has happened under their watch, and they need to take some responsibility and actually address it.

How long did it take for this Government to even say the word “crisis”? Ages. They said, “Yes, there are challenges facing New Zealanders, there are concerns, and we are very concerned. There are pressures facing New Zealanders.” But they weren’t even prepared to acknowledge that there was a cost of living crisis facing New Zealanders.

Hon Member: Why?

SIMEON BROWN: Because they caused most of it—that is the real reason. Their policies have caused New Zealanders to be paying for this cost of living crisis. We heard the Minister talk about how the rapid increase in fuel costs is a result of the war in Ukraine. Well, I tell you what—two years ago the cost of a litre of 91 was under $2.00. Then it crept up to close to $2.80, and then we had the war in Ukraine, which tipped it over $3. These were not pressures that built overnight. These were pressures that were building on hard-working, middle-income families and low-income families for many, many months prior and this Government ignored them until that poll came through.

But, of course, then they made the announcement and they had to work through the detail. And it took them three weeks from the announcement until yesterday and legislation actually coming before Parliament. It took three whole weeks to work through the details. They first had to work out what is an equivalent reduction in RUC rates as we’ve done for the petrol excise reduction. Well, they did the petrol excise one very quickly, because the legislation allows for that. They then took a number of days just working out what the same percentage was. We had to wait over a week for a press release just to say the percentage is a 36 percent reduction. So why did we not have legislation then, at that point, brought to the House to actually deal with the issue?

Then we’ve got a number of other issues, and the National Party will be bringing these issues out throughout this debate on this bill as we do not believe they have been addressed by this piece of legislation. The announcement was made on 14 March, but people who drive diesel vehicles still have to wait till 21 April to be able to get their discounted RUC rate. They have to wait a total of 38 days. There’s no retrospective ability for them to make an application. What if they went and purchased their RUC in between those two days? Some people, particularly trucking firms, are only able to have a maximum of one month, as the Minister has said, before they have to pay the next bill. In that 38-day period, they’ve had to go load up with a whole lot more RUCs. They don’t get the reduction. If this is such an emergency and an urgent issue and the Government is trying to make out that they’re responding urgently to the crisis that is happening, why are they forcing some parts of the roading sector to not have the opportunity to wait for these reduced fees to come through, and why does this legislation not allow them to make an application to have a refund?

We also note that this piece of legislation gives the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) a whole lot more power to now go around and work out whether someone is purchasing excessive or unreasonable numbers of kilometres on their RUCs. What does excessive or unreasonable kilometres mean? There no definition of what excessive or unreasonable means. It basically says that the NZTA will have the power to, effectively, determine what they think is excessive or unreasonable, taking into account the objective of the temporary reduction scheme, taking into account how the person uses it. How many people are going to be employed by NZTA to run around and make sure that everyone who’s been—

Hon Member: With a clipboard.

SIMEON BROWN: A lot of clipboards—right. I can see them with their clipboards, checking to see—“Oh, no, Scott Simpson, you’re very good. You drive an EV so you’re not captured.” But they’ll be making sure that they have a clipboard and they check: “Oh, no, you’ve got another 500 kilometres this month.”, or “You’ve got 1,000 kilometres in the last three months. That must be excessive. We’re going to have to put you through a complicated formula, which is noted in the bill.” I think it’s (a – b) x (c – d) = e.

Matt Doocey: Oh, the old one.

SIMEON BROWN: So there we are—the old formula. They’ll work you through a formula to work out whether you have exceeded the “unreasonable” test that the Minister has put into this piece of legislation. And the Minister will have I don’t know how many people with clipboards running around and making sure they review everyone’s RUC purchases over the next three months to ensure that they are not being unreasonable or excessive in how many kilometres of RUCs they are purchasing.

The National Party will be looking at these issues. We’ll be asking the questions that we won’t even have a short select committee period to address. We’ll be asking questions around why people who may have had to have purchased within that 38-day period will not have the opportunity to get a refund, and whether 36 percent is actually an equivalent. We know that 36 percent is effectively the same percentage reduction, but some people may use a lot of fuel but not travel that many miles, particularly if it’s a trucking firm where the amount of fuel in relation to how many kilometres they do is not actually an equivalent measure, and so whether they are actually getting an equivalent reduction is something that should be questioned and looked into.

We need to make sure that the assessment and this extra regulation is not being over-burdensome and regulatory. So we will be supporting this piece of legislation. We don’t believe it goes far enough. We don’t believe this Government is listening to New Zealanders and understanding the cost of living crisis that New Zealanders are facing, but at least they are doing something small which will help in a small way. So we can support the bill.

I was going to suggest that that speaker Simeon Brown get out more, and, if he were to do so, he would understand that there is actually a war going on in Ukraine. It’s a war that is actually impacting on most of the world and certainly impacting on the price of oil, and that’s really what we’re here about today.

As a Government that actually cares about the costs being imposed by that war and other issues like supply chain issues—and I’ll also say that that member might remember that just as there’s a shortage of container ships in the world, there’s a shortage of containers in the world, all of which is bringing around the price rises that New Zealanders are facing. But, actually, what I should say, at the same time I was going to suggest that that member get out more, is he actually needs to stay in his office a little longer and read the bill, because some of the actual points he brought up are addressed in the bill.

Just before coming to speak here today, I rang a contracting friend of mine who has got quite a big fleet of diesel vehicles. He was unaware of this legislation, but he was quite pleasantly surprised, although he was a little concerned that he had just purchased quite a few kilometres for various vehicles in his fleet—although those listening at home should know that you don’t buy a bill or road-user charges, or RUCs for your fleet. But you still have to buy them for individual vehicles, although organisations try to get it so that they can get all of this done at the same time.

I was able to reassure him that those miles that he’d already purchased that had built up, he was going to be able to get an overlap licence for them, and that is dealt with in the bill. So if he has 1,000 kilometres in the bank, so to speak, for the period of this he can actually purchase new RUCs, or road-user charges, at the new fee or the new sum, and so he—in his case, it’s a him—will not actually lose at all. So can I suggest to that member that some of his concerns may actually be alleviated were he to actually sit down and read the bill.

This is actually also a bit of a catch-up, and there are always catch-ups. One thing I do enjoy about being a member of Parliament is one learns about the systems. We dig down into how these things actually work. I was well aware of what RUCs were. In fact, I recall being with a group of farmers, and there was a young English farm worker who had come over. These farmers were discussing RUCs and the prices of them, and he actually said, “Don’t you guys talk about anything else but rugby?” So we actually had to point out to him that there were other things and that RUCs did have another meaning in New Zealand.

This, of course, is quite appropriate because, of course, this is something that is going to really be an advantage to much of the rural sector, many of whom do drive diesel vehicles and will actually get this discount. For those who are a little afraid that the previous reduction of 25c per litre in gas wasn’t going to apply to them, they can now be part of these reductions as well, so they will actually be beneficiaries of that.

Look, this is a very good piece of legislation. It is a little more complicated, because one thing is that it was relatively easy just to reduce the price of fuel at the pump by reducing the tax. It has been a lot more complicated, and, as the Minister of Transport pointed out in his speech, there are different ways in which companies and individuals can pay their RUCs. So we had to make sure that they aligned so that there wasn’t going to be an advantage to one particular group.

In considering this, there’s also one group that’s going to be quite interesting. As Waka Kotahi and those who administer this know, there is quite an industry in winding back clocks, or winding back the road-user charge mechanisms, and I just wonder whether an unintended advantage of this is that those individuals who habitually wind back the clocks—some of them even wind them too far. I’m well aware of someone who wound his clock back beyond the price of the previous purchase, which was pointed out to him by those selling the RUCs at the time. But I wondered whether an unintended consequence of this is that we may not have those wind-backs happening for at least the period of the three months.

This is a very good piece of legislation. It does ensure the fairness that we on this side of the House are determined to bring about. It means that a section of our society, bearing in mind that this also coincided with a reduction in public transport costs—the halving of public transport costs, which, of course, ensures that those who don’t have vehicles or who are not habitual vehicle users actually can be part of ensuring that this across-the-board decrease in the cost of living can be shared by all, which, again, is another advantage of this related piece of legislation. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Matt Doocey: Madam Speaker.

Order! With apologies, before I take the next speaker, could any members who wish to join the debate remotely please seek a call by indicating that in the chat function. If members do that in good time, then it does add to the proceedings of the House. Apologies for that.

Madam Speaker, I am seeking a call in person. It’s a privilege to rise and discuss this bill on behalf of the National Party, because I think it’s fair to say that at first blush, yes, we support it—ultimately anything that will reduce costs to New Zealanders in a time of cost of living crisis. But let’s not forget that it’s not rose tinted. Labour does not like people who drive cars.

The whole point of the road-user charge is for that charge to go into transport infrastructure. And of course, if you do have a car, whether it be petrol or diesel, you would like roads to drive your car on. This Labour Government will not build roads. And so any relief to hard-working commuters—especially those in regional New Zealand and South Island New Zealand who are sick of their road-user charges being siphoned off to pay for pet public transport projects in Auckland. So how good is it that New Zealanders, and especially regional New Zealanders—because let’s not forget: on one hand, they give it back, but another, they take it away, because a lot of regional New Zealanders are getting a double whammy with the ute tax that’s just been brought in.

So when you look at the explanatory note on this bill—we hear about international pressures and international drivers, but where I’d like to start with is Infometrics economist Brad Olsen saying, “Inflation isn’t an offshore problem that New Zealand is caught up in.” Because we know, on this side of this House, what the response was from this Government. It was, in fact, a gentleman by the name of Christopher Luxon, the Leader of the National Party, who, on a Sunday, clearly outlined in his state of the nation speech the cost of living crisis that was going on for many New Zealanders. On this side of the House we listen. We get out of our offices and talk to hard-working New Zealanders.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

MATT DOOCEY: And they laugh. But of course, on the Monday after that Sunday, the Prime Minister was on The AM Show, looking down the barrel of a camera and she couldn’t bring herself to say the word “crisis”. Then what happened? There was a poll.

Hon Member: Oh, that’s right!

MATT DOOCEY: That’s right. And all of a sudden there was a flap. And, of course, the top minds of the Labour caucus got together—there wouldn’t have been many of them—and they said, “What are we going to do?” And all of a sudden they dreamed up: “Oh, maybe there is a crisis going on.”

Hon Paul Goldsmith: They consult Helen White.

MATT DOOCEY: I’d like to acknowledge Helen White. It’s good to see the backbenchers finally speaking up and talking about what they’re hearing from the people that vote, their constituents. And so what we had in this bill, and it’s clearly outlined in the explanatory note where they talk about international drivers—but what we know, on this side of the House, is that, in fact it’s actually this Labour Government splashing the cash. Because, of course, what we know is in the last quarter of last year, domestic inflation was higher than international inflation. So it’s domestic inflation that’s driving this cost of living crisis in New Zealand.

So yes, it is good we’re giving New Zealanders a relief in petrol excise tax and, quite rightly, a corresponding relief here in road-user charges (RUCs). But I would have some caution because—why don’t we trust people who are purchasing RUCs? There’s a big emphasis here that we need some system to supervise them, because of course, as the Minister says, we don’t want people stockpiling. Are there any monitors on the forecourts at the moment, monitoring whether petrol users are stockpiling the petrol they’re buying? No.

But, of course, in this bill, we’re going to enact—oh, what was it called? A RUC monitor?

Hon Member: That’s right.

MATT DOOCEY: Yes.

Hon Member: A clipboard and white coat.

MATT DOOCEY: That’s right. Because what we know in New Zealand is we need more bureaucrats in Wellington, don’t we. Here we go—a RUC monitor who’s going to assess whether the hard-working diesel owners are doing the right thing. And what I would say is that here we are, under urgency, spending the time of the House—at great cost and resource—passing this bill. Yes, the end result will be good for hard-working New Zealanders. But, as my learned colleague Simeon Brown quite rightly pointed out, it pretty much saves three or four days. That’s the reality at the moment.

As my great friend and learned colleague from Invercargill, Penny Simmonds would say, this Government couldn’t even run a bath. These guys can’t deliver. They got caught out—policy on the hoof. And I say well done to New Zealanders who actually exercised their democratic right and said, in fact, that if were to have an election tomorrow, we wouldn’t vote these guys back in. They said they’d vote National back in. You know why? Because we listen to New Zealanders—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I do invite the member to come more closely to the bill. [Interruption] And I don’t need any help, thank you. While I note that under the general policy statement the policy goal is to offset some of the price increases through reducing road taxes, that is a relatively narrow general policy statement. Context is important, I understand that, but I do invite all members to stick within the context of the bill.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much for that clarification. And as we talked about, with our transport spokesperson, Simeon Brown, there are some questions we do want to ask around this draft legislation, as it is going through urgency, especially around the principle of backdating. So we have heard from one Labour MP—Greg O’Connor—who talked about the ability for an overlap licence. But it would be good to interrogate this further, and we will get the ability to do this in the committee of the whole House stage, because, of course, we won’t have a select committee process to go through to hear from heavy vehicle users. I’m quite happy to be wrong, if the Minister can correct me, but I thought the overlap licence was only for heavy vehicles. So what will happen for light vehicles? I think that is something that we’ll be able to look at, at further readings as well. Is there a cost for an overlap licence?

As we’ve said on this side of the House, we are going to support the bill, but it’s incumbent on us to ensure that we do interrogate the drafting of this bill to ensure the words on the bill are the best fit for New Zealanders. Because what we know is when we look at diesel users, I would argue they are some of the best and hard-working New Zealanders around. God bless diesel car users and this is what we are here to support. Sorry.

Hon Member: Diesel turbo.

MATT DOOCEY: That’s right, diesel turbo. All right. I’ve got the feeling there’s going to be a few stories coming up around first diesel cars. Mine was the Hilux Surf, a very good vehicle, I must say.

Hon Member: Still got it.

MATT DOOCEY: No, no, I haven’t got that. I’ve upgraded to the Toyota RAV4 family car, but that’s OK. Things in life change. I’m sure you can appreciate that, Madam Speaker.

Look, overall, we want to support this bill because we want hard-working New Zealanders to have more money in their back pocket. But ultimately, as parliamentarians, we want to make sure this bill isn’t an overreach as well. I’ve got some real concerns about what is the role, what are the powers, what are the delegations of a RUC collector in this situation, and what are we signing up to to allow them to be unleashed on our many hard-working diesel driving New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, kia ora. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this, the first reading of the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill. And can I just acknowledge that we can still use this function when those in your home have got COVID, unfortunately.

I do want to just point out from the previous speaker, Matt Doocey, around the word “crises”. It’s entirely relevant, but in the context of the geopolitical and economic territory in terms of what’s happening in terms of the invasion of Ukraine and, of course, a positive event—and that’s the ongoing recovery from this pandemic that we’re in and the impact on fuel prices across the globe and, of course, in New Zealand. That’s, essentially, why this has come to be. And we’re putting it through today because, as we’ve heard, hard-working New Zealanders want this, they want this now, and this Government has been agile enough to look at a scheme and put it in place. I want to applaud those who have worked hard to get this on the agenda and to get it on very quickly, because I know that from Friday, 1 April through to 30 June, people will be very happy with the cut in fuel excise duty.

But also, the funding provided for local government in terms of half-price public transport fares—and I do represent a big core user of public transport in east and south Wellington. So there is general happiness—if we can just fix the cancellations, but that’s through drivers having COVID and just not enough of them. We’ve done it with their wages, and I know that in south-east Wellington, it is a real hit. It has made a big difference. I have the pleasure of keeping in touch with our chair of the regional council, who run bus services—that’s Daran Ponter, and he can confirm in a chat this morning about user patterns and what’s happening around the city, that it’s good news.

I have to say that I really do hope that in this—I guess, this three-month period—that we can use it as a pilot, as such, to look at some of that mode shift that’s been long desired, and I know for large urban metros this will, hopefully, have some big impact. I want to just say, too, that the confirmation of the RUC discount does support New Zealanders getting through that global energy crisis. I know that we’ve heard words where it’s unrelated, but it’s entirely related, and this is the sort of action that New Zealanders expect from a hard-working, agile, quick-moving Government who can make changes quickly.

I did pick up that the Opposition is supportive, and that’s important, because what it shows is that this is a good idea. It’s a simple idea; it has some complexity around the road-user charges components, but, all in all, it means that all New Zealanders—whether they own a vehicle or not; being diesel or use public transport as they do in the big cities and other places, of course—it does help them out in the pocket, and that’s what matters most. I know that the road transport industry, who play that vital role in the supply of essential goods across the country, wanted to see a signal from this Government during these challenging times, and that’s what we’ve put on the table.

I’m looking forward to speaking in the second and third readings and putting this through this evening. I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I’m contributing to this bill on behalf of the Greens tonight, at the last minute on behalf of Ricardo Menéndez March, who, of course, is also filling in for our transport spokesperson, typically Julie Anne Genter. This weekend, out in the electorate, a constituent asked me if I thought that the war in Ukraine was going to lead to many countries and negotiators, internationally, perhaps being less inclined to take action on the reduction of climate-changing emissions. This constituent shared that they had been listening to an academic who had said that in moments when unexpected things happen, there is a tendency from decision makers—that is, politicians across the world—to play it safe, to make no sudden movements, and resort to the tried and true rule book. I answer that this is very much a real risk, but that we only have to look, in fact, at the disruption of COVID-19 to see how many nations and politicians will shirk their responsibility for the slow-moving climate crisis when confronted with another crisis.

The problem that we’ve got so clearly is that when one crisis hits, the others don’t stop hitting. We’ve seen time and again that this Government can and does respond to immediate emergency but is at serious risk of ignoring or neglecting the proverbial boiling frog. Two years ago, this House declared a climate emergency, and, in the name of COVID-19, last year Cabinet decided to delay the introduction of the emissions reduction plan. To the point—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can I invite the member to bring her speech back to the bill which sits before the House?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. So this is not the first of the oil or fuel shocks that we have seen. Over the past few decades we’ve seen oil shock after oil shock. In 1973, when oil prices quadrupled between mid-1979 to mid-1980, oil prices rose from US$13 a barrel to US$34. In 1990, they went from US$13 a barrel to US$34 a barrel. Then again, we saw shocks in 2005 through to 2008, and 2010 to 2014. I dare say to any MP in this House who will contribute to this debate tonight—I dare them to tell me that this oil shock of 2022 is the last one that we will see. It cannot be, and none of them can offer that assertion, because we know that the oil market and fossil fuels are inherently volatile. You know what is sustainable, however? It is renewable energy, and that is why the Greens are opposing this bill today. Because whilst we can totally acknowledge the fact that there are increasing cost pressures on New Zealanders—and we have made a real point of the fact that those cost pressures have been disproportionately felt by lower-income New Zealanders who, Statistics New Zealand data bears out, have borne the brunt of double the cost of inflation, in terms of the reality that they are spending the majority of their incomes on essentials on a daily basis—there are real risks and perverse incentives in cutting fuel taxes when in fact we have the opportunity to use other levers, such as boosting incomes for lower income New Zealanders.

The thing about fossil fuels—which is at the core of this bill, in terms of reducing the costs for road-user charges—is that they are formed from literal fossils of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. Despite decades of commercial and political obfuscation and delay, we have known relatively clearly since the 1960s that, without a shadow of a doubt, burning those fossil fuels contributes to the warming of our atmosphere. We also had an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that came out only this past weekend, which demonstrated that we must think ahead and act now. We must make sure that we are not creating perverse incentives and feedback loops, such as the Greens are stating are at serious risk of occurring with the passage of this legislation, when alternatives are available.

What we are debating tonight is an amendment to road-user charges. It’s important to specify exactly what those are, because the Government’s announcement to respond to fuel supply shocks prompted by, as has already been outlined by other speakers, Russia’s war in Ukraine was twofold and it applies for three months. They announced these fuel tax cuts and half-price public transport costs. Those fuel tax cuts come in two forms. They are petrol excise duties, which are able to be reduced through powers under regulation. Then there is what we’re debating tonight, which is, for those who drive diesel vehicles, a more complicated legislative instrument requiring this amendment.

Speaking to those concerns around perverse incentives and in fact, around subsidies for fossil fuels, I think it is really important to draw the attention of the House tonight to a press release, which is available for all to read on the Beehive’s website, from the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, the Hon Damien O’Connor. It’s from 16 December 2021. It’s titled “New Zealand leads the call for Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform at WTO”. I think it’s really important to give this as context for the Greens’ opposition to this legislation tonight, so I’d like to just read the opening paragraphs of that press release. The Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, says, “New Zealand is continuing its leadership in tackling damaging fossil fuel subsidies through a launch of a Joint Ministerial Statement, supported by 45 WTO members. Trade and Export Growth Minister Damien O’Connor announced. In his launching remarks, Damien O’Connor spoke to the environmental, economic, and social costs of fossil fuel subsidies. [He said] ‘Worryingly, fossil fuel subsidies have continued to increase in the past decade, costing governments approximately US$500 billion [of] public funds per annum. These subsidies work against our efforts to address climate change by artificially lowering the cost of fossil fuels, and encouraging their on-going use. This is the opposite of what we should be doing,’ [Minister] Damien O’Connor said.”

Unfortunately, it was only two to three months later that we saw exactly those fears, and the leadership of Aotearoa New Zealand with regard to calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies turned around a little bit. I want to acknowledge that that part of the package was halving the price of public transport for three months because that, as the speaker just before me, Paul Eagle, noted, is encouraging in terms of mode shift. But it does not go anywhere near far enough. So to speak to the cost of this package, we know that it is around $320 million to $360 million—if I’m recalling correctly off the top of my head—for that three-month fuel price tax cut. That includes those for diesel vehicles, for whom this legislation impacts, and those who drive petrol vehicles. We also know that the cost of that public transport half price for three months is in the realm of $25 million to $40 million. If we are to extrapolate that to full price, free public transport and then to extrapolate that for a year, that half-price public transport for everybody across Aotearoa New Zealand would cost less than the three-month, 25c fuel tax decrease over the next three months.

I don’t know how many other ways we can kind of weigh it up in terms of perverse incentives—that is, incentivising people to do things that are contrary to the interests of our nation and of the planet—

Simeon Brown: But most people don’t go on a bus!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —with regard to climate-changing emissions, noting, for example, Mr Simeon Brown, that we have very clear evidence that shows us that even if we were to burn all of the fossil fuels which we have currently discovered and started to excavate, then we would blow way past 1.5 degrees of warming necessary for the survival of the human race. We also are faced with some substantial and unnecessary decisions being made about where we should be investing these funds, noting, of course, that these funds—these road-user charges and the fuel excise tax—are hypothecated. That means that they are put forward in the Budget as being spent on other things. Of course, this is currently being made up by the COVID-19 response fund, but of course, again, the point must be made that there are opportunity costs to these decisions. That is that other decisions are not being made, such as boosting the incomes for lower income New Zealanders.

Just finally, I would like to put it to members of the Labour Party in particular, for whom I do have a substantial political fear for, that the reality of this fuel price tax cut for three months is that in three months’ time, there is going to be a really, really difficult political decision to be made where overnight there is a very real risk that you are responsible for—not you, Madam Speaker, of course; the Labour majority—an overnight increase in the costs of fuel and of petrol in this country. Therefore, this response, while absolutely is responding to the cost of living issues, is not the right proportional or appropriate response. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The problem that this bill intends to solve is not a simple problem of removing the cost of motoring, the cost of operating diesel-fuelled vehicles. The problem that this piece of legislation is attempting to solve is beyond the capacity of this Government to solve—and that is the cost of living crisis.

I had an email today from Ashley. She asked the ACT Party, on the subject of road-user charges, “Could Labour scrap them forever?” Because the costs that her family are bearing right now, with day care, with rent, paying back her student loan, and paying for all of her family’s costs meant that this small reduction in road-user charges that would benefit her family was not even a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money that they are spending just to keep the lights on and to make sure that they have food on the table. Ashley wrote and said she lives in Auckland with her partner. He’s a self-employed truckie and he pays himself only $65,000 a year because he can’t afford to pay himself any more because the cost of fuel, road-user charges, and running the truck mean that’s all he can afford to take out of the business.

Ashley mentioned that when her partner filled up his diesel car, it cost $161 and that’s before the road-user charges. This piece of legislation rushed through under urgency will not help Ashley and her family overcome the enormous increase in cost of living that this Government has overseen in such a short period of time. But let’s be clear: this Government’s policies, not only have pushed up the price of everything they’ve caused a housing crisis, there’s a congestion crisis on the roads, and there’s a massive crisis in how we fund and finance infrastructure.

But look, even if this Government could justify taking road-user charges, it doesn’t actually spend them on roads. In response to a written question to the Minister in 2021, “What percentage of the 2021 to 2031 New Zealand Transport Agency budget is allocated to investment in road construction?”, the Minister said it would be 23 percent—23 percent! So while the Minister has stood up here in the House tonight and has claimed that this piece of legislation, which reduces the cost of road-user charges for diesel-powered vehicles, will actually improve the lives of New Zealanders and help reduce their cost of living, what he’s not admitting to is that less than a quarter of the money that the Government takes from road users actually goes into delivering the roads that they depend on for their communities to thrive.

So, if we look at other examples, road-user charges that should be delivering better roads, that should be permitting people who live in cities to get around without having to spend an estimated 40 to 45 minutes if you live in Wellington and Auckland, an additional 40 to 45 minutes every day sitting on congested roads—the road-user charges aren’t even going to fix the problems that this Government and this Minister tell you they’re trying to fix. We know that because this Labour-led Government and the previous Labour-led Government have cancelled roading projects that were deemed absolutely vital not by politicians but by the businesses that depend on road freight and by the communities that want to move safely between home and school and work.

I’ll give you some examples of cancelled projects The four-laning from Whangārei to Port Marsden, that’s a road that has thousands, sometimes 12,000 or 13,000, of heavy vehicle movements a day. That project was assumed to be going ahead but was cancelled by the Minister after the New Zealand Upgrade projects got away from him in terms of cost. What about the Penlink project that was cancelled by the 2017 Labour-led Government but has since been re-announced? No doubt, when it is finally built, it’ll be at an enormous cost, much greater than it could have been. What about the Tauranga Northern Link cancelled by a Labour-led Government in 2017? Although, you know, clearly there was money to build stuff, and that’s going to be delivered no doubt at a much, much greater cost when it is finally built.

The other problem that we have with road-user charges as they’re currently hypothecated to projects that aren’t even being delivered is that a large proportion of that cost is also being diverted to things like the bike bridge over the Waitematā Harbour, where $51 million was spent on consulting fees without even making progress to complete the business case before that project was cancelled.

So what’s the solution? What is the problem we’re trying to solve here? Well, it’s a cost of living crisis the Government says it’s trying to solve by meddling with road-user charges at the fringe. What we really need roads to do is to connect communities so that people who want to work somewhere know they can get to work in a reasonable time, they can get the kids to school, they can pick them up after work and they can get on with their family life.

So what does ACT say? Well, firstly, we’d solve this cost of living crisis by actually giving road users who pay for their carbon emissions through the emissions trading scheme a carbon rebate. ACT announced recently that we would give families around $750 a year that they should get back from the emissions trading scheme because that’s what they already pay for their carbon emissions. We think that’s a much better deal than what this Government’s offering.

When we think about other ways to solve the cost of living crisis—well, firstly, the regulations that are crafted to administer this piece of legislation will, no doubt, be top heavy. They’ll be difficult to navigate. It’ll be an extra cost on business. What we should be aspiring to is less congestion. Road pricing could help solve that. Better public transport—again, users paying for roads could help pay for better public transport. What we should be aspiring to is thriving communities and a healthy economy. ACT will support this bill because it actually reduces taxation, but this is not how we’re going to solve the cost of living crisis. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break and the House will resume at 7 p.m. this evening.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s wonderful to be back in the House this evening amongst colleagues and such conversations as good legislation, like this particular one, the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill.

On 14 March, the Government announced moves to reduce the burden of high fuel prices on our Kiwi families, introducing a 25c reduction in fuel excise duty, and an equivalent reduction in road-user charges. Since February, I rolled out my new caravan, in the electorate of Northcote, and we’ve been hearing directly from our community around what matters most in Beach Haven, and Birkenhead, and Northcote—some very, very special information. The local community has named the caravan Bert, as a side note, so come on down and see that. But what we hear from people is that they want to share, and have help, in the cost of living—it’s one of the biggest issues that constantly gets raised with me. And this bill is part of the Government’s plan to deliver real relief—to my community and to Kiwi families across Aotearoa.

New Zealand, like the rest of the world, has been hit by a double whammy of inflation caused by shortages as a result of the impact of COVID restrictions that every country—every country—has been forced to introduce to keep people safe, and also, now, by Russia’s appalling war in Ukraine, a key energy producer, which has led to a global spike in fuel prices. We have all seen the impact of these costs at the pump, we’ve seen them in the supermarket, and we’ve seen them impact on families all across our communities. And so this particular piece of legislation, this evening, is about helping families where we are able to, and I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call on the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise in qualified support of the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill. While the Government pats itself on the back for alleviating the pain that people are feeling at the pump, they should also look in the mirror for the reasons why that pain is occurring in the first place. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, it is very much due to decisions that they have made, the pressure that they have put not only on fuel but on housing costs and in the supermarket.

I think it’s also worth reminding ourselves why we’re here. We’re here because of the 42-day rule. If it wasn’t for the 42-day rule, the Government would be able to actually just simply do this by Order in Council. The 42-day rule actually has its genesis in 2008. Those who were campaigning that year will remember the truck protest that occurred because of the significant increase in road-user charges (RUC) that was imposed on diesel users. I think it was Annette King who was the Minister at that time who came out and said “Well, basically, if we didn’t put the RUC increase in straight away, truckies would go out and buy kilometres well ahead of what they would otherwise have done.”

Simon O’Connor: Was that Annette King?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I’m pretty sure it was Annette King, Mr O’Connor. That ended up with trucks up and down the high streets in every city and town in New Zealand. It was in response to that, and, as the Minister has acknowledged, it was with the view that the RUC would normally only go up and not down that the 42-day rule was put in place. It occurred because the previous Labour Government did not trust RUC users to do what they should be able to do, which is to buy things in advance before the price goes up, as if that was some kind of heinous crime to actually give the Government money sooner than they otherwise would to avoid a price increase. Well, that’s hardly in the spirit of innovation. I would suggest that they are entirely within their rights to be able to do that. So the National Government actually put in place this 42-day rule.

It’s the right thing to do to be passing this law, but I do worry that we are actually wasting the House’s time on stuff that actually should be belts and braces in the legislation. I think there is a clause in this bill—and we can flesh this out as we go through it under urgency—where the Government can basically extend this indefinitely by Order in Council. I’m checking with the Minister. Maybe that’s the case. We’ll find the appropriate clause in it. I’m not sure that’s actually good law, because this House does need to provide the necessary scrutiny that is to ensure that we’re passing robust laws. I’m not convinced that the framework is in place for that to be able to happen, and maybe we can put some amendments in place to do just that. So it’s with a qualified support that we will continue this conversation, and I look forward to seeing how that conversation goes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as a proud owner of a navy blue Santa Fe diesel—navy blue. And I’ve recently, on 1 March, purchased 8,000 kilometres worth of road user charges (RUC). And I did so because I’m one of these people who likes to buy things in advance and not get caught out without enough RUC. So I was very pleased to hear that I will be able to benefit from this reduction in road-user charges for the three months that they are brought in for. Now, when I drive my navy blue Hyundai Santa Fe, I’m often asked about “Why’s your car blue?” It’s the colour of the flag: it’s actually white, red, and blue. I can say it’s the best conversation starter that I could have, in talking to my electorate, and when I’m out talking to my electorate, one of the best things that’s happened has been seeing the drop in fuel prices and the drop that we’re going to get through our road-user charges. That, I must say, has made a huge difference for people in the community that I represent. Now, National says they’re about doing the business—they represent business—and yet, today, they’ve said they’re not going to vote for this bill. They’re going to drag it out. Well, my suggestion is that the National Party gets on with the business, like we are.

Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. It’s always a privilege and honour to stand as the member of Parliament for the Ōtaki electorate but also to take a call in this House of change tonight on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill.

Firstly, can I thank the Minister of Transport, his team, and, of course, our leadership from our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who acknowledges and wants to support Kiwis by putting in measures like this to be able to help us at this time. As we know, due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and then, of course, with the COVID pandemic globally and countries starting to open their countries up to travel, that’s made those fuel prices shoot up. So something like this is something that we need right now for our Kiwis in terms of our budgets, and we know that this is part of that bigger piece of work. As we know, this Government’s put in 25c a litre off petrol. We know, in the beautiful Ōtaki electorate, we have $2.57 for petrol at the moment, and if you shop in our supermarkets, you might be able to get 6c a litre off, and that’ll make it $2.51. So, if you’re passing through on the awesome Transmission Gully that this Government has also completed, please stop in, do some shopping, get 6c a litre off, and go and shop in one of our petrol stations.

But aside from that, we’ve also made sure as part of this package—and this bill fits in that wider piece of work—that we’re making our public transport half price as well. Again, for the Ōtaki electorate that means Ōtaki, Waikanae, and Paraparaumu through to the capital is half price for that three months, and, of course, the Capital Connection, which is all stops from Levin right through, which is, again, really helpful right now for Kiwis’ budgets.

But of course, we can’t just leave the diesel drivers out. If we’re going to help the people that drive petrol cars, help people who are using public transport, we need to have these with their RUCs being 36 percent off at the moment for three months. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. National, for the sake of the member Anna Lorck, will be supporting this legislation. But we do so with some caveats and some concerns about the process that has led to us this evening having the House sit in urgency, passing every stage of this piece of legislation without any due scrutiny by select committee, without any opportunity for submitters to have a say, to give us the benefit of their wisdom, for stakeholders not to have any input, and in response to what has clearly been a panicked announcement by the Government as a result not so much of international matters, but as a result of a very domestic but challenging for the Government bad poll.

So what we found was that, in the words of Bob Carter’s famous quote, “Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine.” And now we are, in fact, as a Parliament, having to make up for the Government’s poor planning, for their poor forethought, foresight, and their lack of actual understanding about how the road-user charge (RUC) system works, off the back of their rushed announcement that they were going to give some relief to car drivers who have petrol and diesel vehicles. So not much thought went into it.

It’s easy enough to use a piece of legislation or make the announcement for a temporary reduction in the price of petrol at the petrol pump—that can be done more or less without any legislative need—but for road-user charges, far more complicated. And my colleagues have already addressed several of the matters that relate to the issues that we see in this, but I want to turn to the usual analysis that will be made by way of departmental disclosure statement. Sitting on the table is the disclosure statement from the Ministry of Transport, and it is remarkable in terms of the telling insight that it produces for how ill prepared the Government were and how rushed their announcement was.

So on the face of it we’ve been told that this legislation is required because of international affairs, but those international situations have been now in place for over a month—for quite a long time. And it was obvious right from day one that international oil prices would be affected. All around the world prices were going up and having an impact on people at the pump. So one would have thought that a diligent, thorough, careful, and prudent Minister would have initiated some kind of action earlier than he did. But no, the Minister was completely side-lined by his ideological policy agenda in his other portfolio areas and had neglected to think much about what was going to be required in terms of detail relating to diesel users. So a rapid response to create the announcement—that’s typical of this Government. They do that very well. They announce announcements and they do it oozing empathy but no attention to detail or delivery. And they, of course, completely neglected to understand the implications for offering publicly to reduce the price of diesel, and they didn’t think about the implications for the road-user charge system.

So in the departmental disclosure statement, it says that the policy was developed in response to a rapidly changing international situation impacting on the price of fuel—fair enough. And then it goes on to say—and this is the telling part—“There are no relevant inquiries, reviews, or evaluation reports relevant to the policy.” I’ll read that again: “There are no relevant inquiries, reviews, or evaluation reports relevant to the policy.” There is, however, an intention to release relevant papers relating to the decision to reduce petrol excise duty and road-user charges as soon as they are ready for proactive release. Now, that’s bureaucratic speak for “Nobody talked to the Ministry of Transport, nobody consulted with them in advance, and they had no warning that this announcement was about to be made, and they were not prepared for it.”

The disclosure statement goes on to list a whole lot of sort of standard questions that are usually asked of pieces of legislation. Does the bill seek to give effect to any New Zealand action in relation to international treaty? No. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this bill? And then it goes on to repeat that it was done in response to a rapidly evolving international situation, and as such no regulatory impact statement has been completed. Again, that’s bureaucratic code for “We were blindsided by the Minister, we were blindsided by the announcement, and we weren’t ready or prepared as a ministry to offer advice or assistance on how this policy might be implemented.”

And so the Government has stumbled their way through this in a pretty amateur way really. And it’s probably, I would think, a matter of some considerable embarrassment to a Minister who normally likes to rank himself highly in terms of his efficiency and his ability to be on top of his portfolios. Most of us know that that’s little more than a veneer, but, to the general public, many of them still believe it. But what we find in the disclosure statement from the Ministry of Transport is one of the most telling pieces, which was that the final question is in terms of—well, there were two final questions I wish to highlight in this contribution. One was at 3.6, which says, “Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this bill or on a draft bill?” And the answer simply is a one word, stark, “No.” No consultation on the policy to be given effect by this bill.

Then finally, in what is ultimately a most damning indictment on the lack of preparedness by this Government for this piece of legislation, that they are going to ram through the Parliament tonight under urgency using their absolute majority, is the question, “Have the policy details being given effect by this bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete?” And the answer is that a workshop was held with the New Zealand Transport Agency—the RUC collector—and that was held on 23 March to test and assess the workability of the bill. A workshop was held on 23 March, but the announcement was made on 14 March. So the New Zealand Transport Agency was caught short again by trying to have to administer this legislation, caught without awareness, caught without notice, caught without any kind of sense that it was coming.

So we’ve got some questions in relation to how this could have happened and how the Government could have been caught so flatfooted in terms of what they are seeking to achieve. The bill provides for a temporary respite for people who use petrol, drive petrol vehicles, and, of course, at the same time that announcement was made, the grand sweeping statement was made and the same 25c reduction will apply to RUC. And it was immediately obvious—it was funny. I was looking at social media literally minutes after the announcement was made, and there was an avalanche, a tsunami, of commentary coming from RUC users, diesel vehicle drivers, saying, “Well, how on earth is this going to work? Because we buy RUC in advance, we buy RUC in usually 10,000 kilometre or 1,000 kilometre blocks, and we pay for the RUC not at the pump.” And so the users, the people who were actually involved with this, were very aware very quickly that this was an unworkable solution that had been announced by the Government, and it became very clear almost immediately after the announcement that corrective legislation would be required.

Well, that’s what the House is debating tonight under urgency. That is the corrective legislation that will have to be passed through without any scrutiny by the select committee process that we usually hold dear in this Parliament, and I don’t think that’s good enough from a Government for a temporary measure that is actually going to run out in the not too distant future. The real challenge for this Government will be not the temporary relaxation and assistance they’re providing to New Zealanders who are suffering under the cost of living crisis, but the real challenge for this Government will be what on earth are they going to do at the end of this temporary period when the full impact of the cost of living crisis at the petrol pump and at the diesel pump is going to be again reflected on the long-suffering, squeezed middle in New Zealand, the people who are productive?

Thank you. I rise in support of this very simple and effective piece of legislation. I look at it and I don’t think it’s actually that complicated, Mr Simpson. What I heard, when it was the announcement, was exactly what has actually occurred. There was an announcement that there would be an immediate reduction in the price of petrol. That petrol went down, even before that came into effect, and there was an absolute notice that this would happen, that there would be a look at what was a complex situation and a practical fix, and that’s what we have tonight. We have a practical fix, by way of urgency, and my friends on the other side of the House, for some inexplicable reason, have decided that they will oppose something which is, effectively, a reduction in tax. It seems a little ironic to me that they would take that particular approach of opposing urgency.

I want to talk to the causes for that urgency, because it isn’t a little situation, and I think the New Zealand public will understand. It’s a situation where we have had COVID. It is a situation where, on top of that, we now have our first European war in quite some time. It’s a very serious situation and it impacted on New Zealanders. This Government took it absolutely seriously. And it understood it because I, actually, have such pleasure in hearing from people like my friend Terisa, who comes from the area, which is one of the—she’s absolutely salt of the earth in terms of her groundedness in that community. And she knows that this is what’s affected people, and that this is one way that we can bring relief to New Zealanders.

And so, in this situation, what will happen is there will be a capacity for people who buy 5,000 kilometres of road-user charge to get an immediate discount of 135 bucks. That is bread on the table. That is a grounded response to a situation that needed to be resolved. That is a good contribution to people’s cost of living situations because that’s real. And it doesn’t need to be held up by the National Party asking silly questions in the next stage. It could, actually, just happen.

This here is a good solution, and it’s a simple solution, and it’s a fair solution. And it sits alongside—and I’m very proud of this—a reduction in petrol, but also a half-price public transport system so that people who don’t have a car and who are reliant on public transport can actually come into my city for free.

I am very conscious that the hard edge of what we’ve been going through in the last 20 years is a movement of our poorer people in Auckland out to our suburbs. So those are the people who most do need this, and they, actually, are going to get it. And they’re going to get it from this Government because this Government actually knows that that’s where the money needs to be spent; that’s where the relief needs to be given. And I am extremely proud of this Government for doing that. I commend this bill to the House.