Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

As we canvassed in the first reading of this bill, the Government is moving swiftly to tackle some of the cost of living pressures that Kiwis are feeling. We moved very, very quickly on this issue in response to increased pressure on energy prices. Within hours of Cabinet deciding that fuel excise duty would be reduced, that was enacted. We’ve also moved through a $40 million investment to ensure that Kiwis have access to half price public transport over the next three months. Reductions to road-user charges (RUC) are the other part of the package to ensure that all transport users in New Zealand do feel some relief given the increases in prices that we are seeing coming through due to the war in Ukraine and other supply-chain factors.

It is worth noting, and I respond here to some of the debate that’s occurred in the Chamber this evening, that this has been quite a complex piece of work. As has been canvassed, changing road-user charge rates, given that there are over 200 different rates that are set by regulation depending on the weight and axel load characteristics of different vehicles, is a more complex matter than simply enacting a temporary reduction to fuel excise duty. I want to acknowledge officials from Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport who have turned that piece of work around very, very quickly indeed.

Frankly, in the debate that we’ve had tonight the National Party has been spinning around like a top in terms of the lines that they have been putting out in respect of this issue. I think Mr Hamish Rutherford has his work cut out in the next few months in order to try and establish a little bit of message discipline there. Because what we got from a number of the speakers in the Chamber tonight—and we’ll call these people “team Simpson” because he probably led the charge on this—was an allegation that effectively the Government is moving too fast on this issue, that we should’ve slowed down to get more advice, then engage, and check in with officials. We had a lot of criticism from Mr Simpson that the process has moved along too quickly, that actually we should’ve slowed it down and delayed the benefits of this policy coming into effect for those people who need relief on road-user charges. Of course, that is consistent with the parliamentary strategy that we have seen tonight, whereby the National Party opposition has opposed the urgency that the Government put forward to deal with this issue swiftly and want to slow the progress of this reduction down. So that was one perspective that we heard from the Opposition benches tonight.

The other, which we’ll call the “team Brown world view”, was that this process has been too slow, that we should’ve somehow just willed into existence a complex legislative change across those 200 rates with integrity and transition measures in place to make a robust piece of legislation. I think that that is consistent with the way that that member approaches the portfolio from time to time. He is capable of living existentially in two worlds, as we’ve learnt with his opposition to the regional fuel tax but his delight about the fact that it’s building the Eastern Busway into and through his electorate. So that is relatively consistent for that member.

But what I would say is that over a period of three weeks, for officials and Government to turn around this policy and to be able to present legislation to this House to bring this change into effect from 21 April, I think, is very good work indeed. It is worth noting that, when the change comes into effect from 21 April, it will apply for the full three-month period. So it will be a period of time that the reduction will apply that is comparable or that is the same in duration as the reduction to fuel excise duty and also to the public transport half-price fares that we have brought on as well.

There is one other point that I wanted to cover in the course of my comments in this second reading speech, which may provide some useful clarity about how the transition arrangements will work. It’s been canvassed in the debate so far that people obviously do purchase their road-user charge licences in advance. So there is a question about what will happen for people who have purchased those road-user charge licences before the reduced rates come into effect. Are they able to access the benefits of the reductions that will come through this piece of legislation? The good news there is that we have structured this change to enable those people to also get the benefit. So vehicle owners who do have an existing RUC licence with unused distance will be able to purchase what’s called an “overlap licence”. This is a provision which is in existence in the existing legislation; it’s called an “overlap licence”. With that, the licence begins on the current odometer or hubodometer reading at the time of the purchase. The unused distance on the existing licence can then be automatically credited to offset the new licence costs, and that can be done at the new reduced rate. So Kiwis will be able to benefit from this policy by purchasing road-user charge at the reduced rate during the three-month period. But if they have purchased previously, then through this mechanism, they will also be able to access the benefits of the reduced rate as well. I thought that might be useful to inform the remainder of the debate.

So I am very pleased that we’re able to move forward quickly with the second reading of the bill. Very hopeful that we can move through this legislation and put it into effect so that this important change to help Kiwis with cost of living pressures can come into effect from 21 April and complement all of those other good things that our Government is doing to support Kiwis at this time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the second reading of this Road User Chargers (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge some members from the other side of House for some of their contributions. Before, we had “Team White”: I thought it was a great contribution from “Team White”, telling us to stop asking the pesky questions. [Interruption] That’s right, stop asking the pesky questions, because, apparently, we now live under a dictatorship in New Zealand—it’s no longer a democracy. In fact, actually, what we should be doing here in this Parliament is simply, whenever the Government announces something, wait for the legislation and then just rush it through and don’t ask any single question. But I did note “Team McAnulty”, the chief whip, did give her a little telling off. She spoke for a little bit longer, because she was, unfortunately, making too many points. Too many points. And that wasn’t to be had. I’m sure that “Team Wood”, the Minister of Transport down at the front, would not have been impressed with that contribution in that way.

But this has been a rushed process, and it comes back to the point that this Government says in the explanatory note of this piece of legislation: that this bill has been brought through to try to offset some of the costs which New Zealanders are facing due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the impact that is having on fuel prices. I come back to my point: the invasion into Ukraine started on 24 February, the Government announced this policy on 14 March, and in-between that time they hadn’t even had a workshop with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). The workshop happened on 23 March.

So what actually happened was something which happened on 10 March, and we all know what that was: it was a 1News poll which came out and said National was ahead of Labour for the first time in two years, and that Government panicked. They thought, “Well, we better do something. What are New Zealanders worried about? They’re worried about the cost of living. We better do something. We better do something.” They couldn’t acknowledge it as a crisis. It wasn’t a crisis; just a challenge, just an issue. But we had to do something. And so they quickly made an announcement—and this Government is very good at announcements. In fact, they are very, very good at announcements of an announcement. And what we got on 14 March was an announcement that excise would be reduced, and an announcement of an announcement that at some point in the future, people who have diesel vehicles would get a reduction in their road-user charges (RUC). And that is, eventually, what we’re doing here.

But again, I come back to the point: the legislation says that the Minister can, through regulation, change road-user charges if he or she would give 42 days’ notice. Well, we’re debating a piece of legislation here which will give effect to a reduction in RUC rates within only 38 days after the announcement. That’s right: this legislation is only reducing the period of time between the announcement and when it actually comes into effect by four days—four days. The time frame the legislation requires notice be given of a change to road-user charges is 42 days. This legislation will, effectively, cut that by four days and mean that the road-user charge reduction comes into effect 38 days following the announcement. So we’re spending the night here debating this legislation that saves four days. If this Government was actually, truly serious and was actually addressing the cost of living pressures that were building well before the war in Ukraine—well before that time period and, certainly, before the poll came out on 10 March—they would have been thinking and would have been working on this piece of legislation quite some time ago, so they could have actually acted with urgency at the time when they made that announcement.

So the National Party is looking forward to the committee of the whole House, because there are a number of questions which do need to be asked about this legislation. We do need to tease out some of those issues around people who have purchased RUC prior to this coming into force; whether that applies to light vehicles as well as heavy vehicles; the cost of purchasing those overlapped licences—there is a cost involved in doing that, and we need to ask some questions around what those costs are and then what is the burden that therefore puts upon people doing that. I’d like to know whether the Minister is prepared to actually waive that fee for people who happened to get those overlapped licences, because—I understand it may be a small amount of money, but in terms of the actual benefit, if someone’s going to be only benefiting by $130 and the overlapped licence is going to cost them 10 bucks, well, that actually substantially reduces the benefit that they then get through this piece of legislation. And so we need to interrogate that.

We also need to look at the provision in this piece of legislation around the possible extinction, because this piece of legislation—the Minister hasn’t touched on it, but it, effectively, gives the Minister the ability to extend this temporary reduction, at a different rate. And so we need to ask some questions around how that works and what the Government’s intentions are in terms of having that provision in this piece of legislation. Is the Government actually considering extending the reduction in RUC rates? I think that’s something that New Zealanders would like to know and should know, particularly when they are going to potentially be going out and purchasing large numbers of kilometres of RUC when this reduction comes into force. Is it going to be extended for another three months, six months? Will it not be extended? Why is that provision put into this bill and what is the Government’s intention by putting that piece into this bill?

The final point that I’d like to make is that New Zealanders aren’t just focused here on the cost of living, but when we start talking about RUC—road-user charges—and petrol excise, they actually want to see a Government which delivers. And what we’ve seen under this Government is the money which is being paid in billions of dollars every year—billions of dollars every year in road-user charges and petrol excise—isn’t going anywhere. We’ve had Mill Road cancelled. East West Link cancelled. Ōtaki to Levin, cancelled. The Tauranga Northern Link cancelled and then started again. We’ve had Whangārei to Marsden Point cancelled. Cambridge to Piarere, cancelled. All of these roads, important pieces of infrastructure, and the Minister goes on television and he says, “We’ve got an infrastructure deficit in New Zealand.”

Well, I tell you, Minister, it’s your Government which has created it, because you’re spending all this time writing reports, millions of dollars—$100 million at Te Huia. We’ve got $50 million for a cycle bridge, which has been cancelled but he’s still trying to get it across the line if he can. Thirty-five million dollars on consultants for Let’s Get Wellington Moving, which is actually just slowing Wellington down. Tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted, and nothing being built. This Government’s responsible for the infrastructure deficit, which he crows about on the television over the weekend. And so, Minister, I say that the money that New Zealanders are paying into the land transport fund needs to be spent responsibly, needs to be spent wisely, and, actually, needs to deliver the roads and the infrastructure which New Zealanders need. We’re sick and tired of the reports. We’re sick and tired of the money going on consultants. We’re sick and tired of the absolute waste of money that is happening and the announcements of announcements over years.

And so it’s time to actually get things done. In this Government, the National Government, which is coming in next year, we will get things done. So we will support this bill, but we will also ask the questions which need to be asked, to hold this Government to account. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. During the first reading I invited that member to go and read the bill. He’s had some time to do it, but he clearly hasn’t. Let me just explain what the overlap licence is. It means that if, as one of my Ōhāriu electorate contractors did, he has purchased in advance quite a large number of road-user charges (RUCs), so that he is not disadvantaged the overlap licence will now ensure that they are taken into account and that he will actually get full consideration of what he has previously purchased. There wasn’t anything that existed in current legislation and that wouldn’t have been able to be allowed for.

This is a Government that ensures that when we are going to do something significant which is going to assist people, like my constituent with a large number of diesel vehicles, to work their way through some costs at the moment, we do it properly. Because what we don’t want to do is have the situation where entrepreneurial people, probably smart people, say: “Hey, these things are going to be cheap for the next three months. Why don’t I buy my next two years’ worth of RUCs?” Now, that would be a legitimate thing to do but for this legislation, and this legislation is designed to ensure that won’t happen. So that will bring the fairness that that member seems to be very concerned is not going to be in there.

There will be another reading of this bill tonight, or certainly in this session, so I would invite that member to go away and have a read of the bill so he understands how some of those concerns will be met. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in this second reading. Normally, I suppose, in the second reading we have a look at the select committee stage and think about what was said via the public in submissions. Of course, because we are under urgency, we don’t have the ability to do that. I think, as quite rightly, my learned colleague Simeon Brown has pointed out, it’s taken the Minister and this Government so long to bring this bill to the House, you would argue why there couldn’t have been a truncated select committee in some form to get some feedback and to test exactly the drafting of this legislation and whether it’s actually going to deliver what the Minister and the Government proposes it will deliver.

One thing I would say is, New Zealanders have a great sense of fairness, but what they don’t want is a Government that they feel has switched off, is not listening, and is arrogant. And I think, when you look at that poll which triggered this action, it actually said hard-working Kiwis were saying, “We don’t like watching the Government on TV refuting a cost of living crisis.” That’s what that poll said. So I think it is fairly arrogant for Government members to get up in the first reading, and now the second reading, time after time sheeting the cost of living crisis home to international drivers.

It’s very clear domestic inflation is outpacing international inflation. Rents have skyrocketed, housing, you only need to go to the supermarket. There’s a range of factors—and also the thief in the night, which of course is inflation—which directly link to this Government throwing money out there into the economy. So I think it’s fair for Kiwis to hear from the Government members tonight to actually acknowledge their role in the cost of living crisis which has led us here to tonight.

What I want to focus on for the first part of my speech is the acknowledgment that the fiscal envelope of this initiative will be about $350 million, and I think, if I’m right, that includes the cut in the excise tax as well as this road-user charges. Now, if I look at the press release (PR) that I presume was put out by the Minister, “This means we can continue the Government’s record investment into transport infrastructure without having to cut projects.” Really? When you go around regional New Zealand and see roading projects that were cut when this Government came into office, they have the nerve to now say in their PR, “without having to cut projects.” Really? So what about, say, the Woodend Bypass in my electorate? Announced in 2017 as the next road of national significance; this Government came in and cut it.

So one thing we could have got clarity on in the select committee stage is, when it says, “This means we can continue the Government’s record investment into transport infrastructure without having to cut projects.”, does that mean roads specifically? What projects are they referring to? And are we going to have a cast-iron guarantee we’re not going to be told later down the track that because of this $350 million, vital roading projects won’t continue? Because what’s really concerning is when you look at many mainlanders or South Islanders that pay their hard-earned money into road-user charges and then watch this Government gerrymander the Land Transport Fund and their hard-working road-user charges are funnelled off to pet projects in Auckland, nothing winds mainlanders up more. So we are expecting a commitment tonight that projects will be committed to and proceed as well.

The next point I want to raise: clause 42E, and this could have been interrogated more in the select committee stage. How assessments are to be calculated—got the old formula, A minus B times C minus D equals E. Fair to say, that level of mathematics was not probably my strength, although it was a very good school and the Hon Damien O’Connor, I’m sure, would agree with me on that. But what it says, under B, is the distance covered by RUC licences that the RUC collector considers would have been reasonable to purchase for the RUC vehicle during the temporary reduction period. I suppose we can look at that in the committee of the whole House stage, but it would have been good to interrogate that more in the select committee stage. What does it mean when it says, “reasonable to purchase”? I think we don’t have much detail around that because it’s not actually in the formula. And what will be the criteria that our RUC collectors—this role, RUC monitors; more bureaucrats by the sounds of it—will be assessing what was reasonable to order.

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. There’s a couple of areas of concern here. This is a second reading, and so far in the six minutes of this speech, we’ve had debate on a press release, which is not contained in the bill, and we all know that in the second reading, we must debate what is in the bill as it is written. And the second part is now we’ve had two minutes of talking about what should be in the committee stage, and Speakers’ rulings are very clear that while members can indicate a question that they intend to ask, they must not debate it in the second reading.

MATT DOOCEY: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I’m sure you’re aware that I’m actually speaking directly to the clauses of the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I do invite the member to come back to the bill and contain your comments to the second reading. We are going to go into the committee stage pretty soon and you can actually ask your questions then.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So with that clause 42E, now we will have to think about how we do interrogate that.

The next point I want to raise is the Minister’s reference in the speech for the second reading about the backdating—or what we’re calling an “overlap licence”—and I’ll take his word for it that’s in existing legislation. But what I am surprised at—and of course, that could have been teased out at the select committee stage as well—is I’m not sure it’s actually referenced in this bill. It’s not exactly pointed to. So it would be interesting to understand why it’s not in the bill, and I suppose it does pose some questions for us around the administration of that, the cost of that, and the difference between heavy and light vehicles as well.

So in the second reading, I’ve hopefully outlined, I think, what would have been some of the concerns that would have come out of the select committee stage. It’s fair to say we are in support of this bill at a time of a cost of living crisis. It’s important that many New Zealanders get to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible. But also, I suppose, part of our role as parliamentarians is to ask those pesky questions. And I suppose it is important, because it wouldn’t be the first time the Government’s brought things in and then, of course, had to do their own Supplementary Order Papers at the committee of the whole House stage, but actually had to bring legislation back in the House for further work.

So I think it is important that we ask the pesky questions and ensure ultimately what we have here in the sense of the draft legislation and the words in this bill, that it actually delivers on what the intent is: to ensure that hard-working Kiwis get to keep a bit of their hard-earned cash. But also expect that this Government will deliver on vital transport and roading infrastructures that we need. And we know in the South Island, there’s plenty of projects that have been cancelled and I look forward to them getting under way. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk for the second reading of this Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill. Can I just reinforce the comments of my colleagues who have noted the geopolitical and economic context for the rationale that underpins this bill. We know, as I said in the first reading, that these events—one negative, being the war, and one positive, as we recover from the COVID pandemic—have impacted fuel prices across the globe, and of course here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Two main points that I’ll reinforce. From last Friday, 1 April through to June 30, funding will be provided to local government to ensure that the half-price public transport fares that cover the core public transport services will be implemented. And as I said, it has already proven to be a hit, a winner, and social media tells me that—only in the last few hours—every Wellingtonian who decided to catch a train or a bus, they’re chock-a-block.

To finish, just to reinforce that road-user charges from late April through to late July will be cut by 36 percent across all legislated rates. We’ll hear lots tonight, but we know that the Opposition supports this, and that’s the main point. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill.

For viewers, I’d like to reference them to my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick’s first reading speech, which I think contains most of the context of why this bill is in place. As many have noted in the second reading, there is a geopolitical context as to why the Government decided to, effectively, subsidise fossil fuels and subsequently bring in this bill to ensure there’s no perverse outcomes for vehicles that use diesel. For us, in the Greens, we’ve been really clear from the outset that, while we really welcome the Government’s intent to reduce the cost of living pressures by, for example, discounting public transport, we feel that a much more effective way of doing this across the board would have been with cash transfers, as opposed to trying to do what this bill is trying to achieve, which effectively is a really knee-jerk way of addressing the cost of living pressures.

While we acknowledge that the cost of diesel and the way that it impacts freight can have a flow-on effect on the cost of items, such as food, it’s really important that, on top of looking at things in this bill to reduce the cost of essential items, the Government also commits to prioritising better funding for the electrification of our freight system, to ensure that the way that we supply essential goods is not so vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.

So the Green Party does not support this bill. We encourage the Government to look at other measures that look after our people and the climate, and so we won’t be supporting it to go to further status. Thank you.

I call on Simon Court—he got here just in time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, if only the roads in Auckland were as free of congestion as Parliament’s halls on a Tuesday night.

The ACT Party will support this bill, including the fact that it’s under urgency, because there’s nothing that the ACT Party wants to do more than return taxpayers’ money, whether it’s through road-user charges or any other form of taxation, to taxpayers. There is a cost of living crisis, and all New Zealanders are hoping and praying to wake up and find more money in their bank accounts.

One of the problems with this piece of legislation, which, unfortunately, the officials have failed to point out, is that there hasn’t been a regulatory impact assessment. In the departmental disclosure statement, there is no information at all about the cost and benefits of this piece of legislation, how it will be implemented, and all of the issues around implementation. That means that transporters—people in the industry—are actually very concerned about how much of their administration time and how much of their business time is going to be spent trying to make claims to get the 36 percent reduction. Why on earth wasn’t a simpler method canvassed?

Actually, one of New Zealand’s transporting representative groups, Transporting New Zealand, has actually suggested a simpler alternative—that is, rather than give a cost reduction on road-user charges, give the 36 percent - equivalent extension of kilometres. Transporting New Zealand, I understand, has proposed that that would be a far simpler way of administering the system.

When you actually look at the way road-user charges are administered in New Zealand, it’s a system that was set up in the 1990s, when it was intended that those who caused wear and tear to the roads—trucks on the road; heavy vehicles, it was presumed—would pay their fair share based on their weight, the number of axles, and the distance travelled. At the time, when New Zealanders understood how important user charges, road pricing, and having the people who used the service should pay for it was, actually, road-user charges seemed like a pretty smart idea and a pretty good way to recover the cost from heavy transport operators using the roads. But, like most Governments, they couldn’t anticipate the future. They only looked in the rear-view mirror to come up with policy that solved problems of the past.

So, very shortly after road-user charges were introduced into New Zealand, New Zealand had the benefit of receiving a large number of light diesel-powered vehicles—what we call utes or sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Some of us are lucky enough to have turbocharged diesel engines in our utes and SUVs, which are actually highly efficient with very high compression ratios. They’re great for towing. They’re great for hill climbs and for sandy and muddy conditions. But, of course, these vehicles, when they’re used on road, have to pay road-user charges.

The actual administration of the scheme was set up for commercial operators: for people hauling logs, hauling rocks, hauling containers, hauling fruit and vegetables and food to supermarkets in large truck and trailers, articulated vehicles, and B trains. The system was set up for them, but it has had to be adapted to cater for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of light diesel vehicle operators, and it’s not fit for purpose. The fact that the Government has to come to the House to pass an amendment under urgency to allow road-user charges to be discounted at this time—which, of course, ACT supports because we believe that taxpayers should be able to keep their own money, and so we support that. But if you actually go on the New Zealand Transport Agency website and look at the road-user charges information on how do you pay them and what are they for, the information appears to be from last century, because, actually, that’s when road-user charges were developed and that’s the system that was set up to deal with a problem of the past.

So if we’re thinking about what this legislation is intended to do, well, it’s not even a band-aid. In fact, if it was a band-aid, it wouldn’t even cover a scratch on your pinkie finger, this discount for road-user charges for people who use diesel-powered vehicles. That’s because the cost of living crisis in New Zealand and the astronomical rates of inflation of nearly 6 percent have far outstripped any concession that this Government might have made. But what is heartening, what we should take heart from, and what the ACT Party wants voters to know is that, actually, tax cuts and reducing Government revenue need not lead to a reduction in services, because what the Government and the Minister of Transport have told us is that they will simply reach into another fund—that’s the general taxation fund—to make up for the road-user charge discount.

But that actually brings us to a far more fundamental problem: road-user charges are hypothecated to build, operate, and maintain roads—

Matt Doocey: And rail.

SIMON COURT: —and, it turns out, rail, as my colleague has pointed out—yet only 23 percent of the funds in the National Land Transport Fund are actually allocated to roads. The system is broken.

I have an answer to a written question here that I asked the Minister last year: “What percentage of the 2021 to 2031 NZTA budget is allocated to investment in road construction?” The Minister said, “The estimated funding allocated by Waka Kotahi (NZ Transport Agency) from the NLTF”—the National Land Transport Fund—“is 23 percent.”—23 percent of the money is allocated to roads.

The system is broken. Road users are not getting value for money. Not only are they not getting value for money but they’re stuck on congested roads in major centres like Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and even Dunedin. I’ve even heard that Invercargill has traffic jams. We certainly know that Tauranga has traffic jams. Hamilton has traffic jams. All of this money that is being collected by the Government through road-user taxes, fuel excise duty, and so forth is not being spent on roads. New Zealanders are not getting fair value for money. Now, the roads in Invercargill, it’s fair to say, are wide enough to turn around a wagon pulled by a team of eight bullocks. Actually, that makes those roads ideal for all kinds of urban development public transport.

But look, in all seriousness, the New Zealand road users are being ripped off. They’re having money hoovered out of their pockets through fuel excise duties and road-user charges, and, of course, they’re paying their fair share for carbon emissions through the emissions trading scheme (ETS), that wonderful scheme which captures all of the carbon emitted by New Zealand industries and allows businesses to trade fairly to mitigate emissions, or to pay for their emissions. In fact, the Climate Change Commission said that no other policy at all is required in order for New Zealand to meet its emission targets in 2050, and this Government is collecting so much money from auctioning credits under the ETS.

Remember, every single road user pays for their emissions through the emissions trading scheme. There is a price—an ETS price, a carbon price—put on every litre of fuel, whether it’s diesel or petrol, that New Zealanders use to put in their cars, trucks, vans, utes, and so on. So that’s why ACT says that, actually, we could give the people of New Zealand—the road users and families—a much bigger discount by offering them back their own money. It’s actually a carbon dividend, taking the money the Government collects through the emissions trading scheme and giving each family back $750 a year in a carbon dividend. They’ve paid that money. They should be able to reap the benefit of New Zealand reducing its emissions. That’s what the emissions trading scheme is—it’s a wonderful scheme.

This bill, which ACT supports, will put a very small amount of money back in the pockets of New Zealanders who rely on purchasing road-user charges to operate their diesel-powered vehicles. ACT fears that, like with most Government schemes, it will be overly complex. It will be difficult to administer, and it will impose additional costs on businesses that the departmental disclosure statement has not addressed—has not actually carried out a cost and risk assessment. ACT will support the bill in the hope that New Zealanders get some tax relief from this tax and spend Government.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to speak for the second reading of the road-user charges amendment bill this evening. Can I start by responding to the previous speaker’s statement—and let me be clear: tax cuts do equate to a reduction in services and not only in health and education, but, let’s be very clear, in transport infrastructure in Auckland. If we reduce revenue, we take projects away just like Mr Brown’s Eastern Busway. So let’s be very clear about that, team—that tax cuts do equate to a reduction in services.

But tonight, as we go over the road-user charges amendment bill, it’s important to acknowledge that fair’s fair, right? Fair’s fair. And what we want to ensure is that the same opportunity, the same savings that we have offered in public transport and petrol are afforded to people that drive diesel vehicles. That’s what this particular bill is about, and we want to afford them that opportunity.

I would love to see more people on public transport. I think half-price fares are a great opportunity to get Aucklanders back on public transport, lowering emissions, and moving people around our city. But I acknowledge that there are a group of people that this particular bill will benefit. We’ve got to ensure that we are supporting everyone. What we agree tonight is, yes, we all agree that people are feeling the pinch, that there’s lower amounts of money that people have to spend on the things that they want to. We’re feeling it in supermarkets and we’re feeling it at the pump. This Government has acted. We’ve made movements to change and this piece of legislation is yet another one.

Yet the Opposition, they want to slow things down is what I’m hearing tonight. They want to say, no, let’s go back to select committee. [Interruption] Mr Brown, let’s go back to select committee and slow things down. This Government’s not about that. We’ve got to get on with transport. We’ve got to get on with infrastructure. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call on the Hon David Bennett.

There is a problem with this bill here tonight which the Labour Party hasn’t recognised yet, and they will soon find out in the next couple of minutes. They are innocent to the issue that they have created tonight that they haven’t even thought about. Look at the genesis of the bill. So the petrol excise tax was removed as petrol prices were getting so high, under the guise of the war in Ukraine; that was the pretext, and so be it. And then they worked out, “Well, actually, what about RUC?”, because when they did the excise tax they never thought about road-user changes (RUC).

Hon Member: They didn’t even know about RUC.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No. And then it took a while for a few commentators and trucking companies and others to come to them and say, “Well, what about RUC?”, and then they worked out, “Oh, we need to do that.” So they’re doing this legislation. But there is one fundamental problem with this legislation: what happens in three months’ time? In three months’ time, the war will probably still be going, the sanctions on Russia will certainly still be going, and the inflationary environment will still be here. So, suddenly, in three months’ time, are we going to bring excise taxes back in on petrol? Are we going to bring RUC back in on diesel? No way. Because that will create the biggest inflation spike you will see.

Inflation will already be rampant in three months’ time. It’s not going to change. It’s not going to go away. The Labour Party thinks it doesn’t exist. It will still be here in three months’ time. This is not going to stop inflation. But the Labour Party has a massive problem in three months’ time, because do they bring these costs back into the system? If they do, they spike inflation. They will spike inflation in three months’ time. That is the dilemma they have over there. They haven’t thought through the implications of what actually happens in three months’ time. Are they going to actually continue this for six to nine months, or a year, 18 months to get through to an election? Are they actually going to risk an inflation spike in three months’ time? We don’t hear any answers. Where’s the Labour Party now? Where are those Ministers? What do they think of that time? Did you actually asked yourself that question? I bet you they didn’t. They wouldn’t have even thought of that, because they didn’t even think of RUC in the first place. So they would not understand the implications of this legislation.

And when the Minister takes the chair, we’ll be asking that question: what happens in three months’ time?

Hon Member: Well, do it then, not now.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, we will.

Hon Member: It’s not the committee stage.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I’m giving him a fair warning and he should answer it, and when he has that opportunity, he will. Sometimes you’re going to lay it out there for them to understand before you actually give them the question, and that’s what we’re doing here now. The Minister had no idea. He should have gone out there and understood what was going to happen in three months’ time. He will have no concept of it. There was no planning done by this Government. It is typical Labour Party economic policy.

Hon Member: On the hoof.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Just on the hoof. No judgment around the effects of it and no planning of how to deal with it.

Hon Member: Do you want to get on with it—do you want this to happen?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: We want it to happen but we want to know what’s actually going to happen in three months’ time. Are you actually going to make sure in three months’ time that people don’t have the issue of RUC going up? Because all the clauses in this bill that talk about the period of time where people can buy RUC are on the presumption that there’s only a three-month window.

There is no way that the Labour Party, their Cabinet, is going to sit down in three months’ time and bring RUC in and excise taxes back to their full level. They can’t, because inflation is going to be out of control then. They’re going to have spent so much in the Budget that inflation is going to be out of control. Then they’re going to whack on another 30c or 40c on excise duty? They’re going to whack on another RUC to farmers and other trucking companies and that? No way. How are they going to do that? That will spike inflation after the Budget and that will destroy their political ambitions. The Labour Party should be worried, because they never thought of that when they did this grand plan and this grand policy. They thought it was a short-term thing where they look like they’re great. But look at the financial implications of what they’ve done. They are going to create a spike in inflation in this country, post the Budget, that will destroy the New Zealand economy, put interest rates up, make people lose their homes. People will lose their jobs. That’s the reality the Labour Party’s walked into.

Order! The member’s time is up.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just for those at home that were watching that, if it wasn’t immediately clear, the National Party intend to vote for this bill and they recognise that New Zealanders need a bit of assistance at the pump.

Just to correct what was said by the Hon David Bennett—it was total nonsense, utter tripe, what he was saying. It was signalled at the time of the announcement—the very press release that Matt Doocey spent six minutes debating—that this change was signalled at the time. It was signalled at the time that it would require legislative change in order to achieve this. And yet, tonight, we’ve heard, from different National Party speakers, different positions. We’ve heard from Mr Doocey that he’s worried that this bill will cut expenditure on roads. Yet Mr Brown has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that would increase the cut of that very tax—they’re not even talking to each other. We heard from Mr Doocey that this bill should have gone to select committee. Yet, at the time, the transport spokesperson of the National Party said, “The Government must introduce urgent legislation in the next sitting block.” Here we are, in the next sitting block, bringing through urgent legislation, and what does Mr Brown do? Whinge.

Anybody that is watching Parliament TV tonight will see that all the National Party are doing is trying to appeal to their core voters whilst they’re actually supporting this bill. And if they really wanted to see this get through the House, they would just stop the politicking, stop the filibustering, and let’s just get on with making a change that New Zealanders want to see happen.

Mālō ‘aupito, Madam Speaker. Firstly, can I just correct or address an earlier contribution or kōrero by Mr Simeon Brown around the cancellation of Ō2NL–that claim is incorrect. I can confirm that Ō2NL is going ahead—we call that Ōtaki to Levin—having lived in Levin last year, when Hon Grant Robertson came to the Southward Museum in the Ōtaki electorate and spoke to the Kāpiti Coast Chamber of Commerce and confirmed that the Ōtaki to Levin road will be going ahead. Just like we completed Transmission Gully, just like we’ll be completing Peka Peka to Ōtaki by the end of the year; and then we start Ōtaki to Levin. We’ve also been really lucky that we’ve already started some of the work there and we’ve already started to acquire some of the land. So, fantastic news. Something that I have lobbied really hard for, along with a lot of other people in the Ōtaki electorate. So great news: Ō2NL, I can confirm, will be going ahead.

But to speak again to the bill. Again, this bill is in response to what we know is happening at the moment globally. And, for us, while unfortunately we can’t control Russia invading Ukraine—and my heart goes out to the people in Ukraine at this time—and we can’t control the global COVID response and pandemic, what we can do, and are taking action on, on this side of the House, is what we can control, and that is making sure that we support Kiwis during this time. And that is around this fuller package, and certainly in this bill, is around making sure we reduce the road-user charges by 36 percent, especially for our diesel drivers. And that goes towards the bigger package of not just our 1 April changes, not just the stuff we’ve already built on, like the winter energy payments, the free lunches in schools, but it also means that the half-price public transport and the 25 percent off petrol will go along with this, and put a bit more pūtea in our whānaus’ pockets.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can tell a Government that’s in trouble when their backbenchers start announcing and promising roads. The Minister sits there, ashen-faced, worried about what the next backbencher is going to say. Helen White’s been talking about crime in Auckland Central. This one is the one-term MP for Ōtaki. She’s worried that she’s not coming back in 15 months, and so she’s starting to make policy up on the hoof, and that’s just the way it’s going to be. The ill-discipline and scared reaction of the Labour Party we’ve seen tonight being expressed, if only by the twitchiness of the senior whip, who seems determined—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Under pressure.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —who’s not only under pressure but seems determined to think that his whip-ly duties extend to this side of the House, and I’m sorry to inform—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I invite the member to come back to the bill.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, I’m responding, Madam Speaker, to interventions made by previous Government members—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): And now I’m inviting you to come back to the second reading of the bill.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: This is a bill that was created as a result of a bad poll—panic-stricken, bad poll. Refusing to concede until they absolutely had to that there was a cost of living crisis confronting the squeezed middle in New Zealand, this Government panicked. So they did and reverted to type, which was to announce an announcement—as my colleague Simeon Brown so clearly enunciated in terms of setting out the time frame, which is important to repeat because we didn’t have a select committee hearing into this piece of legislation, and just because the transport spokesman in the National Party calls for urgent legislation doesn’t mean that it be passed by urgency. It means that it be introduced to Parliament urgently and then go through a normal parliamentary process. But that’s not good enough for this Government. That’s not good enough for this Government. They want to do things on a knee-jerk, panic-stricken basis, just to get a quick media shot.

So aggressions commenced on 24 February in the Ukraine, and that followed weeks of anticipation from international media, energy commentators, all sorts of people, even New Zealand domestic commentators, in the prelude to hostilities commencing on 24 February, were saying if Putin acts in the Ukraine there will be a negative impact on petrol prices and diesel prices in New Zealand. So it’s not like this came as any sort of surprise. So hostilities started on 24 February, and on 14 March this announced change was made, and then it wasn’t until 23 March that finally a workshop was held with the New Zealand Transport Agency to try to figure out what to do and how to handle the issue relating to road-user charges, because it became apparent very quickly that something needed to be done because it wasn’t quite as simple as just simply lowering the price at the pump as it is with petrol. But what intervened between 24 February and the workshop and the announcement on 14 March was, of course, the public opinion poll that came out on 10 March. So this is the time line, and when members opposite join the dots together, as the New Zealand public have so carefully and easily drawn the dots together, they know exactly what the motivation for this piece of legislation is and why it is.

So this is a temporary measure that sooner or later is going to have to be reversed. The ACT contribution from Simon Court was correct. New Zealanders will be grateful for some small mercy of reduction—some small breadcrumbs really; just crumbs from the table of the massive expenditure that Government has spent. But don’t forget, Mr Court, where this money is coming from. This isn’t actually a reduction; this is smoke and mirrors stuff. This money has been diverted from the COVID fund—diverted from the COVID fund. So that’s money that had already been printed or borrowed in the name of our children and grandchildren, who will be paying for it for the rest of their working lives, to fund a temporary announcement to get the Labour Government off the hook following one bad poll. Well, the sad news for the Labour Government is that the polls are probably—I would think and I’m not a betting person; they’re going to get worse. So we can expect a whole lot more of these sorts of decisions in the weeks and months to come.

Members like the one-term wonder from Ōtaki and Helen White from Auckland Central, they’re going to continue speaking out because they know that their only lifeboat is actually to find a voice, to be independent, to actually speak on behalf of real New Zealanders and to actually put aside the speaking notes that come from the Labour Party’s research unit and start thinking and speaking for themselves, because that’s their only hope of redemption.

So the National Party is going to support this legislation because, as our colleagues on this side have so clearly said, we are grateful on behalf of New Zealanders for even a few crumbs that this Labour socialist Government has deigned to bequeath to hardworking New Zealanders who have suffered so long and so hard under the policy agendas of this Government who are going to continue to be the squeezed middle and continue to be suffering the cost of living crisis. We are grateful on their behalf for these small crumbs and this small gratitude that the benevolent Government has shown them.

I’m pleased to support the second reading of the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill. I think that the New Zealand public may be well confused if they were listening to the Opposition at this point. I think I heard David Bennett suggest that in fact this was not a good idea because it would be inflationary. This is a very good idea. I also think I recall that the Leader of the Opposition party talked about a 10c reduction in the payment of fuel—this is a 25c reduction, on average.

And what this Government did was exactly what it announced. When it announced it, it said that the legislation was complex in this area, and it has found a way of doing that and delivering to the public exactly what they need at this time, which is actually cheaper fuel and cheaper transport in the same package. Which means that I am extremely pleased to see that people who buy 1,000 kilometres will save $28, and that will be real money—real money in real people’s pockets. Not hot air, which is what I’ve heard a lot of from the Opposition. I commend this bill to the House.

The Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of that bill.

In Committee