Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill

This particular part of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill refers mainly but not only to the question of refunds. What it does is increase the rate of refunds to people who are entitled to them. The regulation refers to section 41 of the principal Act, which in this case is the Land Transport Management Act. There is a group of individuals and companies that is exempt from paying the taxation that other people pay in this area.

The first point that I want to question the Minister of Transport on is the rate. I see that the rate of refund is 3.45c, which is a 3c increase in the goods and services tax. That is the amount that is refunded. The question that I want to ask the Minister is whether this is a deliberate over-refunding. Someone who pays the extra 3c and GST, and gets the GST as a deduction, are they not double-dipping?

What this does is exempt people. We will use the example of the few people in the electorate of Mr Hayes who do get a refund in the area. There are a number of his wealthy National Party colleagues, National Party members, who do get a refund by way of using the farm vehicles—or, more likely, the farm trust vehicles—for transport. These people will have an increase of 3c plus GST, and 6c plus GST, and 9c plus GST, under the part of the bill that has just been passed. What happens is that they will be able to apply for a refund if they are in the exempt group. I think there is debate about whether they should be in the exempt group or not—and I will say just by way of an aside that the exempt group is sometimes quite broad. For example, there are an unusual number of what are known as “Queen Street tractors” that spend their time around the halls of residence of Dunedin students. These are trust-owned vehicles. The cards that are used to drive them belong to trusts that are associated with farms or with other companies. It is a clear tax rort. It is a matter of keeping the general rate of tax, and sometimes—and it is a particular outrage—these students are entitled to student allowances because of the trust arrangements of the family finances, whereas people from normal working class families are not, because they happen to declare their income and pay their tax in an appropriate way.

The point that I want to get back to, and the question that I want to ask the Minister, is why it is 3c in the first part of the bill and then 3.45c in Part 2. I can accept that people pay the 3.45c extra. They pay at the bowser, or, generally, actually, more often, what happens is that there is a delivery for the farm vehicles, which then gets hosed into the family car. That is the approach that tends to happen. I have spent quite a bit of time in rural areas. Once or twice I might have been paid in petrol myself, but I would never confirm that. It was a long time ago, when I was young.

💬 Grant Robertson: That was a long time ago.

That is right. We used to have to crank the cars at that particular stage, to get them started.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Ha, ha!

Do not laugh, Carol Beaumont. I have cranked a few cars in my time to get them going.

💬 Grant Robertson: Move on.

Behave yourself. The important point, and the one that I want to focus on in this call and the next one—but there is a further point to make in my following calls—is that people pay 3.45c a litre including the GST. They get a 3.45c refund, but that is not GST-inclusive. So people pay 3c plus GST and get a 3.45c refund, but the GST that they have paid is deductible against their GST liability.

The question that I have is whether or not we have a case of Bill English, whether we have “Double Dipton”—“Double Dipton”—being reinforced as part of this bill. I would be interested in the learned—no, sorry; he is not a lawyer—the honourable Minister’s view on this matter as to whether in fact we are getting any double-dipping here.

There are some areas that we will not argue with, as far as this part is concerned. Overall, it is a mixture. For example, it does include a refund for search and rescue vehicles, including boats. Well, I think that if a vehicle is genuinely used only for that purpose, or if petrol is put into it for search and rescue purposes, then that is something that is acceptable. One of the questions I have is whether foreign fishing boats come into this category or not.

💬 Grant Robertson: I think they do.

Well, I am not sure. I am not sure of the exact fuel that they use. Part of the question is whether it is appropriate to exempt fuel that is used for commercial purposes other than fuel in a motor vehicle. I think there is a dilemma here. I think that if the Government is genuine about closing the loopholes, then, in fact, it would be better to look at some of these uses under section 5(2) of the Land Transport Management (Apportionment and Refund of Excise Duty and Excise-Equivalent Duty) Regulations 2004. The other point is that it says in section 5(3) that “Nothing in this regulation applies to any motor spirits, compressed natural gas, or liquefied petroleum gas”—does anyone use liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) any more? Is LPG still—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: A few taxis.

A few taxis still use it—“used as fuel for a motor vehicle that is mainly used in vehicle races or trials or other sporting events.” Well, is that fair? I mean, why can the farmer get a refund but the professional racing driver cannot get one? Either it is part of your business or it is not.

I think what we are in danger of here is reinforcing some inequities in this legislation. I think we do need to look at the amendments that were made on 29 March 2007 and their relevance in this particular case. I think that one of the dangers we have when we have this sort of approach to decision making is that we get the danger of inconsistencies. The point I was making earlier is that we have been described in the past as the fastest lawmakers in the West. We are unicameral. We do not have a second Chamber, and that is why we should be really careful when we do anything that affects ordinary Kiwis, either by way of regulation or under urgency. And the trouble with this is that it appears to be doing both.

We appear to be passing legislation in this House that affects regulations, that overrides and changes regulations, and we are doing it under urgency. And with all due respect to members opposite, I am not sure that we have had any evidence, during this extended sitting day, of a level of competence on the part of the Government to get the legislation right. It is something that is pretty basic. Thank you, Mr Sabin, the former policeman, for nodding and agreeing with me. I hope he is not going to sleep.

I want to pick up—

💬 Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As an independent MP, I am permitted to speaking only during—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! While there is a point of order on the floor, it is to be heard in silence.

💬 Brendan Horan: I am permitted to speak in only the Committee stage. I was denied the opportunity to speak on Part 1 earlier in the Committee stage. I would ask you to consider that, in the interests of democracy, New Zealand actually hears an independent voice, and that I get an opportunity to speak in this Committee stage.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr Horan.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Although the member has a valid point, I think that it has generally been regarded as disorderly to disagree with the Chair in that way, and especially to interrupt the contribution of another member, as Mr Horan did. I think—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): He is new.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: —that if he called out a little bit louder when members are going for the call, someone might hear him.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

I want to pick up where my colleague Mr Mallard left off. We are debating Part 2, and in particular I am looking at clause 7, which institutes new regulation 6A—and now I am just checking on the Attorney-General’s well-being over there, which is perhaps not so great just at the moment.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: He’s gone. He’s gone.

He is gone—he is completely gone. That is terrific—[Interruption] Oh, there he is. Very good. So, just for Mr Finlayson’s benefit, I say that we are looking at clause 7, which institutes the new regulation 6A into the Land Transport Management (Apportionment and Refund of Excise Duty and Excise-Equivalent Duty) Regulations 2004. As Mr Mallard said, we are looking at who can get a refund under section 6A. I think the Minister in the chair may need some assistance now, as well. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Have we finished?

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister appears to need some assistance at the moment. What we are looking at here is who can get a refund and what those refunds are. I think it is worthwhile—given that the many members of the public who will be glued to their televisions and radios listening to this debate will not be aware of exactly how this process works—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, you’re not allowed to refer to them—that’s a point of order.

Ha, ha! People who are interested in this debate will not necessarily be aware of how the excise duty refund works. In this new regulation 6A, there will be a rate of refund of 3.45c on 1 July in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Mr Mallard has already explained that that 3.45c effectively equates to the 3c that is being increased plus GST, and we have the open question of whether or not there is double-dipping here if these same people will be claiming GST back at the same time as having that included in their refund. We have not heard from the Minister of Transport an answer to that, but it is important to know who is actually entitled to this refund, because that goes to the Labour Party’s major concern about this whole bill.

So who is entitled to a refund? Generally speaking, according to the New Zealand Transport Agency fact sheet on these matters, it is vehicles that are used mainly for commercial purposes, particularly agricultural vehicles and some mobile machinery. So, as Mr Mallard has already made the point, once again what we see here is further benefit for those at the upper end of the income spectrum—further benefit for those more politically aligned to the National Party.

We go right back to the beginning of the whole way in which National ended up with the roads of national significance. We know, from the emails helpfully released as part of The Hollow Men book and documentary, that the National Party, then in Opposition, made a political decision to create the roads of national significance, not because they were the best transport solutions for New Zealand but because, politically, that would work for it. Maurice Williamson, Don Brash, and John Key—they were all involved in that email exchange, and that is how National ended up with this policy. So, once again, here in Part 2 we see the next stage of the politicisation of this point, with the next stage being that those who generally benefit from these refunds are those using commercial vehicles.

Mr Mallard made a very good point, because the exclusions that the New Zealand Transport Agency lists are any motor vehicle that is principally used in vehicle races, trials, or other sporting events. That seems overly harsh on the rally drivers of New Zealand and those who are working to earn a living from using their vehicle—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: On the track.

—on the track—in a commercial way. So I do not think that the Government can necessarily sit here comfortably and say that this is a fair exclusion and a fair refund process. It is a refund process that goes directly towards the very people who have benefited from the rest of this Budget from the National Government.

Seeing this come back in the way that it does in Part 2 reinforces for us that this legislation is not really about how we fund transport in New Zealand; it is about the overall picture that this Government is trying to paint when it comes to its supposed economic management. It is about the Government trying to cover over the fact that we have an economy that is not growing, that we have jobs promises that are not being met by this Government, and that the only way that it can get itself to its political surplus is to ensure that it puts up petrol tax, which, as we know, will be borne fundamentally by those people on modest incomes—the people who are already struggling. If you are on an income where you can throw it through a trust, then you will be able to get the refund, but if you keeping going this way—

I would like to acknowledge both of our colleagues who have contributed here. Mr Chairman, you are ruling with an iron rod in this debate, and we hope that there will be sufficient—[Interruption] That, too. I need not come back on Tuesday, perhaps. But it is an adjournment week, so hopefully he will forget if you do not write too much in the Hansard, Mr Mallard.

It is interesting how the most arcane details of legislation often provide the greatest insight. Colleagues have rightly pointed out that the refunds here, the entitlements, apply to agricultural and commercial vehicles. It is a bit like what they used to say: “Cut out the middle man; vote for Treasury.” Under this National Government, it is “Cut out the middle man; vote for the other English guy, vote for Federated Farmers.” This is really a Federated Farmers set of exemptions.

The other exemption that is particularly important is the exemption for commercial vessels. Of course, we have got a problem at the moment, and I want to commend the Government for seeking to extend New Zealand flagging to foreign charter vessels in the New Zealand exclusive economic zone. At the moment, those vessels are not subject to fuel excise at all. They are not even subject to GST. Their crews are not subject to PAYE, and, as many New Zealanders will know by the horrendous reports of abuse in parts of the industry—in parts of it; by no means in all of it—they are not subject to New Zealand labour law, either. So I commend the Government for trying to fix that up, and, hopefully, that will bring all of those vessels, and therefore their fuel, within the tax net.

Mr Mallard raised an important technical point, which was around the quantum of the exemptions and the refunds. In doing a quick scan for other precedents, we have also picked up another similar example where it may well be that the Government needs to take remedial action. That is in respect of KiwiSaver for non-residents. Under the Income Tax Act, that can be clawed back if someone has received a tax credit while overseas and failed to notify. But what is not clawed back is the interest or use of money or any capital appreciation based on those tax credits. It is a very similar situation to this one.

I think the lesson here is that here is a Government that is passing legislation for the sole and utter purpose of trying to make its Budget appear balanced, because without the $700 million - odd that this will deliver by 2015 it would not be within a bull’s roar of a so-called balanced Budget. It is not anyway, because earlier in this debate we have illustrated some $3 billion worth of shystership, of shonkiness, of—well, there are lots of other technical terms that spring to mind, but let us just say that the numbers do not add up. They do not come close to adding up. But the Government needs this Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill even though it has the power to do the same job by regulation, without detaining Parliament at $10,000 an hour, or whatever it is. We are here on a Saturday in New Zealand time trying to pass legislation that is unnecessary.

In Part 2 of the bill we are further complicating life by creating a possible interaction between regulations that do not need to be there. We have asked the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Transport, to take a call and explain if he can, which is by no means certain, whether the clawback refund provisions apply appropriately. If he can address himself to the commercial vessels issue, if he is able to also tell us whether the precedent around the KiwiSaver tax credits is an appropriate analogy, and if he can tell us whether the Government intends to take remedial action on that matter as well, that would be extremely useful.

It may be that in doing so he could come up with some other reason why we are here on a Saturday afternoon passing legislation that is legally unnecessary. There may be something, although I cannot think of anything, that the Opposition has overlooked. There may be a legitimate reason why the Government is doing it; it is just that none of us can see it, because, as my colleague Mr Mallard has pointed out, there is a regulation-making power that could have achieved exactly the same outcome on 1 July. The Minister is, I think, shaking his head; he may be breathing, but I think he is shaking his head. If he is, I would invite him to tell the Committee and the country why that is not the case, because that is what the country believes, Minister. The country believes that you are passing this for what Mr Joyce would call optic reasons—to make a balanced Budget appear when otherwise it would not.

Part 2 of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill deals with refunds, and I would like for us to consider why there should be refunds and who gets the refunds. For the many New Zealanders who are watching today, and also for those New Zealanders who are overseas, and also other people who are watching on, I would just like to go through the main drivers of petrol and diesel prices so they get an idea. One, we have the cost of oil and then the refined product. Two, we have the exchange rate, which also affects the price of petrol and diesel; however, it seems to go up quickly, but when our exchange rate is high, it always seems to come down very slowly at the pump. Three, we have Government taxes and levies. Currently, around 62c per litre is made up of this Government’s taxes and levies, and that is exclusive of GST. Diesel uses the very unfair road-user charges that we saw rushed through last year. If we have a look at some of the price rises, I believe, in April of this year, we see that unleaded 96 cost around $2.13 a litre, and in May it was $2.17 a litre. We have these price rises that are separate from the taxes that this Government is putting on.

What does that mean to the person in the province, or, actually, the average, ordinary person at home who is trying to feed their family? It puts extreme strain on that family, because everything goes up. Food prices go up. How are the normal mums and dads who are on the minimum wage—and I might say that it is disgraceful for any person who has worked in a job for more than 2 years to be on the minimum wage—going to be able to afford the other increases that occur when petrol goes up? Perhaps we could consider giving refunds to every mother in New Zealand, or every father in New Zealand, for those school lunches that are going to cost more, and for the food in the supermarket that is going to cost more.

This week the Prime Minister stood up and instead of saying that 39,000 houses would be consented in Auckland in the next 3 years, he said that 39,000 houses will be built. Well, with the increase in taxes, those houses are going to cost much more, and I would make the prediction that by this time next year, the average price of a house in Auckland will be $1 million, not $750,000. So whom do we give the refunds to? Do we give them to sports teams? One of the great things about New Zealand is the ability for our children to be able to play sport and to see New Zealand. But with these increases, how are the parents of those children going to be able to afford to get them to the sports grounds? Perhaps we could give refunds to sporting teams. Perhaps we could give refunds to coaches, because coaches need to get to training. They need to train the young ones.

This is all part of the New Zealand psyche, and one small increase has massive long-term ramifications for the average New Zealander. I would ask that this Committee consider giving refunds to sports teams, to sports coaches, and to parents of children, because what we need to do is be fair in this country. We have a situation where farmers may get a refund, and so they should, or orchardists may get a refund, and so they should too, but we as average New Zealanders have to pay that cost at the shop front.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very appreciative of my first call, in fact, of what I suspect will be many on the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. I suspect I have got a few other names for that—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Part 2.

—which we are going to talk about in a moment. I am aware that we are talking about Part 2, Mr Mallard—just hold your horses; we will get to that. We are talking about Part 2 at the moment, the refund provision that exists within this legislation, otherwise known as, once again, National looking after its mates—looking after the people who can get the refund—while other people, such as the regular hard-working New Zealanders who pay the extra fuel tax, who were promised that life would get better under National and that they would pay less tax under National, do not have the access, probably, to the provisions in this particular part. They are going to end up paying the extra tax and they are going to feel disappointed and let down.

Before the 2008 general election Maurice Williamson, the National Party’s then transport spokesperson, went around the country telling New Zealanders that if the National Party did a good job, it would not need to put up fuel taxes. The levies would not need to go up. Maurice Williamson was busy saying that to New Zealanders before the 2008 general election. How many times has this levy gone up since National came into Government? That means that Gerry Brownlee has been a spectacular failure as a Minister of Transport, just like Steven Joyce was before him.

It just shows whom the National Party is interested in looking after. It is not interested in looking after the ordinary hard-working New Zealanders, who are going to have, what is it, $45 extra a year—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes, after year 1.

—in year 1 on their motoring bill—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: $90 in year 2.

—$90 extra in year 2—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: $135.

—and $135 extra in year 3.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Plus compounding.

That is right; it is compounding. These costs will continue to go up for ordinary, everyday families, who are already struggling to meet rising costs under this National Government because, despite promising New Zealanders that the tax burden on them was going to decrease, in fact, ordinary, everyday working New Zealanders are saying that the tax burden on them has gone up under National—increased GST, increased fuel tax, increased student loan repayments if they have got a student loan, and many other increases that they are facing. So many other costs and expenses have gone up for ordinary, everyday Kiwis under this National Government. They will not benefit from the refunds that are available in this particular part of the bill, which we are debating before Parliament—Part 2 of the debate, the consequential amendments that we are talking about.

This is yet again another bill that is going through all stages of Parliament under urgency. I suspect, given our previous experience of the earlier bills that we have been debating under this urgency motion, that there will be some future amendment to it when National realises it has completely stuffed it up. There is probably a drafting error or some other mistake in it, because there has been a mistake in just about every other bill that the House has been debating under this urgency motion. I think New Zealanders are going to want to know why they are paying this extra fuel tax and why they are not getting the ability to access refunds under Part 2 of this.

I am looking at what this extra money is going to be funding—the roads of significance to National. That is what these levies are going to be going towards. I know, for example, regarding the Kapiti Expressway that there is huge debate about exactly whether or not that is good value for money. Many people do not think it is, and, in fact, a huge group of residents on the Kapiti coast think that it is going to split the community in half by driving a massive four-lane highway between Coastlands, the main shopping area of Paraparaumu, and the beach and the shopping area. It is basically going to drive a massive four-lane highway between those parts of the community, on what was always designed to be a local road. It has been on the books for many, many years, and the community expectation in Kapiti was always that that road, the Kapiti Expressway, was going to be a two-lane local road. And, yes, there would be upgrades to State Highway 1, but they were not expecting that the Government would go and co-opt what was going to be a local road and whack a massive four-lane highway right through the heart of that community, which is what this Government is proposing to do.

Of course, the road will not be designed to benefit local motorists, because there will be very few on-ramps and off-ramps off it; it is designed, basically, to move traffic through that area without having to stop and without the trucks having to slow down. It is not designed, in any way, with the local residents of the Kapiti coast in mind, and that is the sort of project that all New Zealand motorists are now going to be paying more for. I think that there are some real questions the Government has got to answer. But, of course, we are not hearing anything from the Government.

All those National backbenchers over there have absolutely nothing to say on that. When they were in Opposition, the National backbench had a lot to say about transport—

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, because this is where we find out who gets away with it. Who by way of a refund does not have to pay the tax that is propping up the National Government’s supposed surplus? Well, here is the part where it panders to its mates, of course. Part 2 is where it is pandering to its mates. While I am talking about panders, that is actually what Gerry Brownlee resembled when my colleague Trevor Mallard asked him a question about why the Government was not doing this by regulation, and he actually put it to Mr Brownlee that later on the Government would bring in regulations to take the taxes up even higher. Mr Brownlee sat there like a giant panda and did not respond. I have seen giant pandas that have been more communicative than the Minister of Transport was when that issue was put to him by Mr Mallard.

But back to Part 2—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Hey, have we got our panda yet?

Yes, well—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Has John Key’s panda delivered yet?

I think we have got the panda bit well and truly in Hansard now. So Part 2 tells us that it is people who have agricultural equipment and commercial vehicles who are going to escape paying for this illusion of a Budget surplus from the National Government. Of course, that is National pandering to its mates, but it does not get away with it completely.

The other part that is propping up this illusion of a Budget surplus for the National Government is its keeping ACC levies higher than they need to be. Of course, one of the ACC levies that is higher than it needs to be at the moment—and will remain so for 2 more years under this Budget from National—is the one on the motor vehicle account. So that is the registration that everyone pays on their ACC levy. Even though some people will get a refund on their petrol tax in Part 2, they will still be paying, on average, up to $134 more a year on the registration for their motor vehicle. Not only are they going to be paying for the National Government’s promise of a Budget surplus every time they go and fill up at the gas station—every time New Zealanders fill up at the petrol station, I want them to stop and remember that they are paying through their pockets for that Government’s promise of a Budget surplus, because that is clearly what is happening in this bill. In Part 2 some of them get it refunded, but it is not the ordinary New Zealander who gets that refund; it is people who own agricultural or commercial vehicles. I think that tells us just exactly where the priorities of this National Government lie.

The Government is, of course, charging every business and every worker in this country more than it needs to in ACC levies every week through their pay packets, as well. That is the other way it is propping up its Budget surplus. Up to $2 billion more a year than ACC said that it needed in order to keep its scheme going is being charged by that Government to every single worker and business in New Zealand. But, of course, Part 2 of this bill tells us that although that is happening for every worker and every business in New Zealand, when it comes to petrol tax, some of those businesses—not the workers but some of the business owners—will be getting a refund under Part 2 of this bill. They are people who operate agricultural and commercial vehicles. They are going to get—well, actually, we think they might be double-dipping, because not only will they get the 3c and then the 6c and then the 9c back for every year but also, under Part 2, they are going to get the GST back on that.

I think it is a very salient point that has been raised by this side of the House about whether that is double-dipping or not. I would ask the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and clarify that issue. No more giant panda impersonations, Mr Brownlee—up on your feet. Tell us about the GST in Part 2. Is it double-dipping or not? That is important, because you are pandering—sorry, not you, Mr Chair, of course. You are not pandering, but Mr Brownlee is pandering to his mates in this part. We need to know whether he is pandering to them in a way where they are able to double-dip on the GST refund or not. This is important, because it is only a small number of New Zealanders who get to use the refund in Part 2. It is not your everyday New Zealander. It is not the families whom we on this side of the House are concerned about, who are using their private vehicles, day in and day out, taking children to school, taking them to sports events, and getting to work. All of those everyday uses of vehicles are not going to actually get this refund under that part.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am going to call Mr Lees-Galloway.

That is an excellent choice. I think that is a fantastic choice. Given that there are more senior members than me seeking the call, maybe they will get the call at the next opportunity. Part 2 of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill lays out the consequential amendments to the Land Transport Management (Apportionment and Refund of Excise Duty and Excise-Equivalent Duty) Regulations 2004. Essentially, what this does is it gives a refund predominantly to farmers but also to other particular vehicle users who use their vehicles off-road. It seems a little bit anachronistic, actually, because in the schedule we have a detail of all the vehicles that are exempt vehicles. Motor vehicles used only on roads solely in connection with agricultural operations, farmers’ vehicles used solely in connection with agricultural operations, tractors or traction engines, farmers’ tractors, agricultural contractors’ tractors—so lots of talk about tractors there. The principle here is that if a vehicle is used principally off-road, then it should not be paying fuel excise tax, because fuel excise tax is used to pay for roads and public transport and other transport initiatives. These off-road vehicles are not using transport infrastructure, because they are predominantly on the farm.

I think it is strange that some are missing here. Vehicles that are predominantly used in forestry that do not go on public roads, and maybe vehicles that are used predominantly in mining that do not go on public roads, as well, I would have thought would be covered by these types of exemptions, and yet they are missing. What appears to have happened at some point in history is that probably Federated Farmers has got in the ear of the National Party and said: “Hey, we need these exemptions.”, so we have got these really specific exemptions when the principle here is quite sound.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They’ve always been exempt.

From tax in general? The principle here is a strong one, though, which is that vehicles that are used predominantly off-road should not have to pay fuel excise tax. That is how road-user charges work. So the diesel does not carry the road-user charge and, therefore, tractors that are fuelled by diesel predominantly work off-road—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s inconsistent.

Well, that may be. I mean, there is inconsistency here, Mr Mallard; you are absolutely right. Maybe there would be room for consistency by moving in one direction or the other. But it just seems bizarre that it is specifically about farmers, and I do not know whether that is the relationship with the National Party or not. You know, we have perhaps raised whether these exemptions can be rorted, but all the people who are using this exemption are working hard on their farms to produce the produce that goes to market for sale. It is still, of course, the backbone of our economy—our agricultural sector—and these people are working really, really hard. What they want, of course, is a decent roading infrastructure that can actually get those products from the farm to the market. It is all well and good—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: A decent railway interchange.

And a decent railway interchange, as well, Mr Mallard. It is all well and good to have roads of national significance running up and down the spine of New Zealand, but if we have not got decent roads going from the farm or the forest or the mine to those roads of national significance, then what is the point of having these gold-plated, unaffordable roads up and down the middle of the country if the local roads are not up to scratch? I suggest that John Hayes go and talk to the Mayor of Tararua District Council, Roly Hayes. He is in Dannevirke, interestingly enough. He might want to go and see—

💬 John Hayes: Ellis.

Roly Ellis, sorry. You are absolutely right—Roly Ellis. He wants to go and talk to him. I suggest that he go and talk to Roly Ellis about his concerns about the fact that his local roads are predominantly gravel roads. They are not sealed. What Tararua is really looking forward to is when a considerable amount of forestry matures and comes on stream for logging, and that will be a significant source of revenue for that district. But the roads are predominantly gravel roads. They are not decent roads prepared to carry the trucks that will carry that important produce—the logs—from the forest to the Port of Napier or to the roads of national significance or to the railway line that will get them to market.

So it is all well and good for the National Party to focus on its political roads, but as for the people who are working hard and getting the exemptions laid out here in Part 2, they can work as hard as they like, but this Government is not working for them. This Government is not working for them, because what this bill does is tax New Zealanders to pay for those roads of political significance. Try as they might, even if they get these exemptions laid out in Part 2—and they are significant exemptions, at 3.45c per litre—

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I deliberately waited until you had put the vote in order not to be sort of disorderly, but I do want to ask you whether you can explain your reasoning with regard to the latest set of calls. I think we all know that it is the discretion of the Chairman as to who is called. I am not going to argue with that. But it does seem to me to be particularly surprising that the normal rules of seniority within a party were not used on this particular occasion. My colleague who is the fourth-ranked member of the Labour caucus and sits on the front bench made repeated attempts to get the call, but a number of us more junior members—as far as the current seniority arrangements are concerned—were called, including, right at the end, I think, the youngest member of the Labour Party caucus, Mr Lees-Galloway.

💬 Hon Member: He’s the spokesperson.

It might be the fact that he is the spokesperson and you are recognising that, Mr Chairman. But I would like an explanation as to the criteria that you are now using, because, at first glance, it does look a bit awful.

My question will be very brief in regard to this. I wonder whether you could elucidate for us, in fact, that somebody being the primary spokesperson on an issue for a party is one of the factors that you consider in making a decision around who you call in a debate such as this. I am aware, for example, that Mr Lees-Galloway was seeking the call for quite some time before he got one on the debate on this particular part. He is the Labour Party’s primary spokesperson on the matter.

Can I just point the member to Speaker’s ruling 25/5: “How a party utilises its speaking and questions rights is an internal matter for that party to determine.” I can say that in recognising Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, he is the spokesperson for the Labour Party, and so he took precedence in that particular instance. I am quite happy with the decision I made. Also, of course, the Chairperson is the sole judge.

Clauses 1 and 2