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

Where were we? The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part. I call the honourable member Grant Robertson, the deputy leader of the Labour Party.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for recognising and remembering that. I am currently looking, in this contribution, at clause 1 of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, which is the title clause. I intend to come back and perhaps make a further contribution on the commencement date because there is a lot to say about that.

The question of the title goes to an important matter around this bill that the Labour Party has been raising during this debate. It is currently called the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. That simply will not do, because it does not accurately describe the purpose of this bill. There is one thing in here that is accurate, and that is the word “Budget”. This is about the Budget for the National Party. It is about trying to justify or trying to make claim to getting the books into surplus. As has been established in earlier stages of this debate, we have not heard from the Government a true justification of its surplus, beyond how it has fiddled with and fudged the books.

I would argue that a more accurate title for this bill would be the “Customs and Excise (Fake Surplus) Bill”, because that is actually what it is. It is about a piece of legislation that contributes—along with raising petrol taxes in this bill, there are the ACC levies, and the other tax changes that have been made by this Government that have benefited the top 10 percent of income earners; all of those things have contributed—to the fact that this Government is now claiming a surplus, a wafer-thin, margin of error - level surplus, which it will get as a result of increasing petrol taxes, increasing ACC levies, and some magic numbers that will appear in the Budget in the 2014-15 and 2015-16 years. There are magic figures of $400 million here—$1.1 billion from corporate tax, which suddenly disappears again a year or so later. This is a fake surplus. That is why this bill should be called the “Customs and Excise (Fake Surplus) Bill”.

It could also be called the “Customs and Excise (Bogus Budget Balance) Bill”. I like that—alliteration is good. I think it makes law interesting if we can have alliteration. It is a bogus Budget balance, when one has to take into account this range of other things that are contributing to the surplus other than actually growing the economy, creating jobs, and doing the kinds of things that we would like to see in a Budget, and it is bogus to see it here.

I do also want to refer to another title that could be put in place for this bill that would actually argue that this is the “Customs and Excise …”—and there are a number of options here, but I think the “Customs and Excise (Roads of Political Significance) Bill” is probably the most accurate. If we are to take the Government at its word that this bill is about the National Land Transport Fund and getting the money there—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You’d be stupid. You’d be stupid.

Well, you would be stupid, Mr Mallard, but, for now, let us pretend we are stupid. That may not be too difficult for you, so we will see how we go! But let us pretend that we are stupid, and say that actually this is a time in which the Government says that, yes, it needs this money for the National Land Transport Fund. But what is that for? It is quite simply for the Government’s political choices about where it believes roading should go.

We have established already on this side of the Chamber—without any response from the other side, I might add—that this is the end result of the National Party’s decision when in Opposition to adopt a roading policy that was not about what was best for the transport infrastructure of New Zealand but was simply about what was best for the party, electorally. That is what Don Brash and Maurice Williamson cooked up. That is what John Key took on from that. Maurice Williamson paraded it around the country and promoted it, as well. That is what Gerry Brownlee has accepted now.

These roads of significance to National, or roads of political significance, should be mentioned in the title, because that would be a more accurate reflection of what is actually being put in front of this Committee today. To simply call it something benign, like the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, does not actually capture what this is. In fact, if they really just wanted to go down that path, it should be called the “Raising Petrol Taxes Bill”. We have not heard throughout this debate an honest contribution from the National Party members to say: “Actually, we are raising taxes. That is what we are doing.” There is a reason for that. We could also call it the “Customs and Excise (Breaking National’s Promises Again) Bill”, because it promised not to raise taxes. It went around the country promising not to raise taxes, and yet that is precisely what this bill does.

We have been through a lot of legislation over the last few days in this House, and the contributions of National MPs have been non-existent. National MPs have simply not got up and been prepared to justify to their constituents and prepared to say to their constituents: “Yes, we’re raising taxes. We are putting taxes up. We are taking money out of your pockets because we want to come up with a bogus surplus.” That would be honest, if the National Party MPs stood up and said that. That would be an honest title for this bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call. I have been struggling throughout to get a call on this bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill.

💬 Louise Upston: Diddums!

Well, wait until you hear what I have got to say, because I think you will find it very interesting.

We know what this bill does. It artificially inflates the duties now collected off petrol, and that is in the context of a Government that is spending billions upon billions upon billions of dollars on a small number of roads. It has chosen the roads of National Party significance—the roads of national significance—and the problem with that is, of course, that provincial roads, roads in the regions, are being absolutely starved of any attention at all. So when it comes to the title of this bill, it might more accurately be called the “Customs and Excise (Deprivation of Regional Roads) Bill”.

I want to relay one particularly important example, and that is State Highway 3 in Taranaki. You do not hear much of it in Parliament these days, but I think it is very important to raise it. State Highway 3 in Taranaki is in an increasingly parlous state. In the mid, almost south, Taranaki area is a stretch of State Highway 3 encompassing a bridge called the Normanby Bridge. It is arguably one of the most dangerous stretches of road—it is only a 50 metre or so stretch—in the country. It has had four fatalities in about 2 years. There have been repeated accidents on that stretch of road, and the local regional council is struggling to get the New Zealand Transport Agency interested in it. It cannot get funding to operate that piece of road and make it safer. The best the New Zealand Transport Agency can do is put up a couple of signs either side of the bridge saying “Slow down”. But it is a dog-leg of a bridge, it is a dog-leg piece of road, and it needs to be realigned.

Then comes the real kicker, and that is the road north out of New Plymouth. The New Zealand Transport Agency, at the behest of this Government to save its political skin in the last election, allocated $15 million to fix a bridge—yet another bridge—just north of New Plymouth. It is another stretch of road of about 50 metres. There is another 100 kilometres of road that is highly problematic, dangerous, and the bane of truck drivers in and out of north Taranaki, and has been for a long time. It is at the point now where all that the New Zealand Transport Agency will do is fund resealing the bits of the road between the fog lines. It does not fund the upgrading and the repair and maintenance of the shoulders of the road, and it is becoming more and more dangerous. Two particular stretches—the Awakino Gorge and Mount Messenger—have both had report after report after report prepared on them, and we cannot get any money spent on them.

You do not hear anything about it from any other member who comes to this House who represents or has a connection with that area. There is only one member in this House who comes and talks about that stretch of road and those issues—the issues affecting Taranaki—and that is me. This bill, and raising the excise on petrol yet again without any commitment to fixing this very important piece of road, just demonstrates the short-sighted nature of this Government and its so-called traffic and transport plan. It is a very sensitive issue—a growingly sensitive issue, you might say—in Taranaki, and this bill will do nothing for it. The title of the bill should properly reflect the negligence and the abdication of responsibility that this bill, along with this Government’s total traffic and transport plan, actually represents. It is a denial of attention, proper attention, to regional roads and to the provinces, which are screaming out for attention.

The last major piece of road upgrading that was done in Taranaki was the famed Bell Block Bypass known as “Harry’s diversion”, promoted and encouraged by Harry Duynhoven, a former member for New Plymouth, now the current mayor. It is a highly successful stretch of road, but it was only ever one part of a long-term jigsaw that had to be put together, and this Government has abandoned the jigsaw. The people of Taranaki are crying out for it. They are crying out even louder than the people of Wairarapa, who feel that $45 a year, $90 a year, and $135 a year are a major pinch in their pocket, but their local member does not recognise and respect that. The people of Taranaki are crying out for attention and for action. This bill will not even help them, and the title of the bill should properly reflect the failures in it—the failure to give due care and due attention to the real needs of people in the provinces and the regions, the good people of Taranaki foremost amongst them.

It is my pleasure to be able to take a call—[Interruption] Thank you, I think that was Trevor Mallard’s attempt to give me props, maybe, or perhaps—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It was just that Mr Little had been here a long time and I knew he desperately needed a call, so that is why I took him before you.

Mr Chair, as one who well understands the frustration of the continual attempt to take a call, I really applaud the democratic way in which these calls have been awarded. I feel that there is no favour expressed and I am not still reeling from my massive defeat in the Waikato at your hands, Mr Chair. I know that you have been giving me sympathy calls ever since.

I think it is important when we debate the title and commencement clauses that we take them in context, and we are debating whether or not the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill should remain as such. I agree with the deputy leader that to a certain extent the use of the words “Budget Measures” does give an indication as to what this bill is attempting to achieve, so I want to acknowledge that up front; there is a little bit of transparency in this title. By using the reference to Budget measures it is very clear that this is one of the Government’s primary ways of getting this country back into surplus. I think it was pointed out by our leader in his Budget speech that people should remember, when they are at the petrol pump, what has got this Government over the line when it comes to its much-trumpeted surplus in the future Budget. I think we need to take that all with a grain of salt and with a bit of context, that that is what it has taken to get us over the line. In that regard, the title has reflected something that I think is accurate.

But in many ways, actually, other elements of the bill have tried to ignore that. You need only to look at the regulatory impact statement to get a hint of what the rest of the bill claims that it is trying to do. I do want to add that I am pleased that we have in this case a regulatory impact statement, although I would have liked to see a little bit more detail in that. But this is a good place to look for some other ideas for what this bill perhaps should have been called in its title. It states in the regulatory impact statement that forecasts of revenue and expenditure for the National Land Transport Fund in November 2012 indicated a total revenue shortfall of around $1.6 billion over the next few years. That indicates, obviously, that things are going terribly wrong in the way the Government is prioritising its spend within the National Land Transport Fund, or it is simply ignoring that people are choosing to travel and transport themselves differently—not least because of the rising cost of living and of transport generally.

So you could, in that sense, call this the “Spending More Than We Have on Poorly Planned Projects Bill”, or you could, in that sense, call it the “This is the Plugging the Gap for the Roads of National Significance Bill”, because that is exactly what this bill does. In that sense, it is also, as I said before, very important that we look at a bill in its totality before we vote for it.

We have in the past, of course, used things like regional fuel taxes to make sure that we cover our transport needs for a region—Auckland being amongst those high on the list when we think about the needs for those kinds of measures. But, for Labour, that has always been about trying to cover the costs of all transport options, not simply saying that the land transport pot of money needs to go simply to building more and more highways, because that is not futureproofing our transport needs.

This bill is very explicitly about trying to plug a gap for building those roads of national significance. So although, of course, in the past we have used those measures, we have always been clear that they are for a range of projects, and I would highlight that for the Greens. Why would they want to vote for a bill that is so explicitly going to end up funding projects that I know they do not support? That is something that, I think, contextually we must be very clear about when we vote for measures like this. It is not just about the measure but about where it ends up. So that is why I would almost, as I say again, call it the “Customs and Excise (For the Roads of National Significance) Bill”, just to be very clear about what will be happening with this extra revenue. As the title implies, this bill is for the Budget, but it is also trying to go towards plugging that roads of national significance gap, so you could almost call it the “Sell It, Tax It, Spend It 12 Times Over Bill”, because that is exactly what we have seen as well with the way this Government has behaved with assets.

As I have mentioned, the Government did get rid of the regional fuel tax some time ago now—

I have been looking forward to having an opportunity to speak on the title and commencement clauses of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. The first alternative title that I would like to offer is the “Fuel Tax for Funding a Fanciful Surplus Bill”. As members have said a number of times, essentially what this bill is about is making sure that the Government can just squeak past its plans to make a surplus. Really, I think it is entirely disingenuous of the Government to try to suggest to New Zealanders, through the title that we have, that this is somehow about funding transport infrastructure—even to suggest that it is about funding broad transport infrastructure. What we know is that on current projections, a simple fuel tax increase aligned to CPI would be enough to do all that this Government wants to do. It could build all the roads that it wanted to without having to bring this fuel tax increase in, but what it needs, of course, is money right now so that it can meet its Budget surplus.

You might have noticed there is a little bit of alliteration in that title. I know that another fan of alliteration is Dr Cam Calder. It is good to see Cam Calder in the Chamber now. He told medical students today that he could not be at a symposium that they were holding, because he had an important speech to make to the House on the fuel excise tax bill, and he would have to make that speech at 2 o’clock. The sum total of Cam Calder’s contribution to debate on this bill was at about quarter past 4, when he said: “I move that the question be now put.” That is the entire total contribution that Cam Calder made to this. But I know that Cam Calder would love an alliterative title to this bill, like the “Fuel Tax for Funding a Fanciful Surplus Amendment Bill”.

Another good name for this would be the “Taxing Middle New Zealand Bill”, because that is what this bill actually does. It is part of the Government’s suite of measures to make up for its unaffordable income tax cuts that it gave to its mates, because, again, it needs to get the country back into surplus. And because it gave away those unaffordable tax cuts for the rich—let us be honest; they were tax cuts for the rich—now the rest of New Zealand, particularly middle New Zealand, is having to make up for that by paying for these fuel tax increases.

Another good title for this would be the “Fuel Tax (Leaving Out the Regions) Bill”, because the Minister has said at every opportunity that what this bill is about is funding the Government’s roads of national significance—those roads of political significance that are all about the highways that run up the middle of the country. They are not about the regions. The National Government is not working for the regions. If it was, it would have an integrated approach to its transport network, and it would be funding those local roads like State Highway 3, for which Andrew Little has been advocating for so long; like the gravel roads in the Tararua District, which the locals have told me personally they want to see upgraded so that they can get better productivity out of the logging that is about to come on stream; and like the alternative to the gold-plated highway—the Western Link Road—that could have been built on the Kāpiti coast. That is what the locals actually wanted, but because this Government is not interested in what the regions want—because this Government is not at all interested in what the regions want—it is putting up taxes on everybody so that it can build its monuments to its 1950s approach to transport infrastructure.

We could call this the “Plugging the Gap that Steven Joyce Created Bill”, because what we know from reading through documents containing advice that the Minister of Transport has received is that Steven Joyce told the New Zealand Transport Agency to overspend. He deliberately told it to overspend on its roading budget so that there was pressure on the roading budget, so that there was a call for additional funding, and so that then the Government would have an excuse to bring in this extra tax. Why did it need an excuse to bring in this extra tax? So that it could get the Budget back into surplus. So this is plugging the gap that Steven Joyce created; that is what this bill is all about.

Finally, I would call this the “Taxing the Regions to Pay for Auckland Bill”, because the Government has said “No, no, no.” to all the options for getting Auckland working and all the possible revenue options so that Aucklanders could pay their fair share of transport infrastructure in Auckland. If this Government does plan to do anything, if this Government does plan to do anything at all in Auckland, who is going to pay for it? It is going to be the people of Southland, it is going to be the people of Hawke’s Bay, and it is going to be the people of Manawatū.

I move, That the Committee report progress.

It is a pity the Attorney-General has left the chair. If he is available, it would be good if he could help with some of the interpretation that I think needs to occur. I have before me the Interpretation Act—in fact, in the old days it used to be called the Acts Interpretation Act—and I want to refer to section 8(1), which refers to the commencement of legislation. I am referring, of course, to the commencement clause, clause 2, of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. Section 8(1) of the Interpretation Act says: “An Act or an enactment in an Act comes into force on the date stated or provided in the Act for the commencement of the Act or for the commencement of the enactment.” I think it is fair to say that subsection (2) is not relevant for this particular point.

But the question that I have for the Minister or, if he needs help, for the Attorney-General, who is the Minister responsible for the Interpretation Act, is whether it comes into force at the beginning of the day or at midday or at the end of the day. I do not know whether I should say that I am from the Opposition and I am here to help. But I think that if the Government wants something to come into effect from 1 July, by way of amendment to regulations, it is my understanding that it has to get it in place before then so that it takes effect on that particular day. We know that the Government’s attempt is to commence to get the petrol tax—and for a whole pile of reasons we think it is wrong—to go up all day on 1 July this year. I do not think there are any debates about 1 July 2014 and 1 July 2015—that is relatively clear.

But the question I have got is whether, by having the bill come into force on 1 July this year, the Government is allowed, under the Interpretation Act, to get the money from—I used to work night shift at what used to be called The Ferry. I do not know what it is called now—the big Shell service station down there. It was back in the days when you had two standard pumps—one super pump and one diesel pump; there was a little thing on the triangle. There were petrol price changes, and they were relatively frequent. There were carless days, and there was a whole pile of different arrangements back in the time of a very good Labour Government sometimes going bad. There were price adjustments. But we always had notice, and they always came in at midnight. They came in at midnight, at the beginning of the day, but that was because the enactments had been done, effectively, beforehand with notice for a particular day. But in this case the enactment comes into force only on the day when we expect the Government wants to lift the price of petrol. The question there is whether the commencement date is accurate.

The other question in regard to dates that I want to ask the Minister about is how the commencement clause interplays with clause 7(2) of Part 2. Because what happens there is that regulation 6A of the principal regulations, as inserted by clause 7(1), is revoked on 1 July 2015. What they—the dates as set out—appear to have the effect of doing, and this is not clear, is undoing the farmers’ exemption. If it is the Government’s intention to undo the farmers’ exemption and other people’s exemptions as at 1 July 2015—not for the whole lot, but just for this extra 10c and GST—would it not be better for it to say something about that in the explanatory note? It is a relatively simple matter. I would appreciate—I know we are relatively early in this debate—

I move, That the question be now put.

I am happy that I am finally able to take a call in this debate, after seeking the call for a long time, because this is a very important piece of legislation.

💬 Hon Member: You didn’t have a chance.

Actually, that is true, unfortunately. I think that the title of this bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, does not accurately represent what this bill actually means for the people of New Zealand. I think a more accurate title would be the “Customs and Excise (So That’s How They Manufactured a Surplus) Amendment Bill”, because the extraordinary thing about this piece of legislation that we have learnt through this Committee stage is that this is how Government members are getting the books back into surplus. They said they were going to do it, they were desperate to meet it, and this is how they are going to do it, by artificially pushing up petrol taxes.

When you look at National Government members, this is really all they have done. All they have done in their time in Government, when they have tried to make the books look good, is increase taxes. They increased GST, when they said they would not. John Key stared down the barrel of the TV camera and promised the voters he would not, but he did anyway. They have been overcharging people for their ACC levies. And now, lo and behold, here we have another petrol tax. So instead of actually structurally getting our economy back into the black, instead of actually structurally doing it in a way that means it is sustainable, it is real, and it is based on real economic activity, we are whacking up petrol tax, which is going to hit the lowest-income households the hardest again—again. This is another regressive tax from the National Government to try to make itself look good.

Given that income from this tax is also going to pay for the Government’s ridiculous roads of national significance, these gold-plated holiday highways, perhaps we could rename this bill the “Customs and Excise (Peace of Mind for Low and Middle Income Families) Amendment Bill”. I am going to explain myself on that. This bill gives peace of mind for low and middle income families, who will now have the satisfaction of knowing that Ministers will be able to get to their holiday homes 7 minutes faster at peak holiday times. So those low-income families will be able to sleep easy, knowing that when the ministerial vehicles are heading up to Northland to the holiday homes at Christmas, they will get there 7 minutes faster. That is fantastic news for low and middle income households in this country.

I am interested in, once again, this Government’s complete obsession with roads, over every other form of transport in this country. I think we could also call this bill the “Customs and Excise (Gisborne Still Doesn’t Have a Rail Line) Amendment Bill”, because it would have been nice to see some of this money go into the rail line between Gisborne and Napier, which was damaged in a weather event last year and would cost a couple of million dollars to fix. All the businesses in Gisborne and Napier and Wairoa want it. We need that rail line. If you actually want real economic activity, then you support transport corridors like rail and like coastal shipping. It would have been nice to see some of the money being sucked out of the pockets of people in Gisborne and Wairoa and Napier go into funding their rail line—an absolutely vital piece of infrastructure. I hear Mr Auchinvole interjecting on me. Would he be happy if his rail line on the West Coast closed? No. It is all right because it is not his rail line—not his rail line. Well, we have a “wall of wood” coming down on the East Coast in the next few years—that “wall of wood” starts to come down. The only way it has to get out of our district is by road and by coastal shipping. People would love to be able to use that rail line.

We have a lot of container transport out of Gisborne, as well. In fact, a big bulk of our produce out of Gisborne goes on containers. The only way they have to get out is by road because we do not have the container capacity at the Gisborne port. There is a mill that is closing down in Wairoa because of the Government’s refusal to fund our rail line. So this should be the “Customs and Excise (Shame on the National Government for Not Supporting the Provinces) Amendment Bill”, or perhaps the “Customs and Excise (More Transport Taxation Not Going to the Provinces) Amendment Bill”, because that party, the great party of provincial New Zealand, has been sucking money out of the provinces from the day it came into Government. It takes them for granted. It figures they are going to vote for it anyway so it will just treat them really badly.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: John Hayes says it’s not much.

Well, that is right. John Hayes says there is not much of that in this bill. John Hayes says that, you know, this bill puts up taxation for people in the provinces for absolutely no reward in return, and that is fine. He says that because he can afford it on his MP’s salary, everyone else in his electorate should be able to afford it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He has his transport paid for.

Oh, of course, that is right. MPs’ transport costs are paid for. We can claim them back. I am sure Mr Hayes does. Well, unfortunately, his constituents do not have that ability, and here he is—

I move, That the question be now put.

I have sat here listening to this debate with some astonishment. First of all, there is the lack of debate from the Government in defending its tax increase. But then I was disturbed by the fact that this bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, really needs to change its title. I think the best title that could be given is the “National Party U-turn Bill”. That should be the name of this bill, because I was the Minister of Transport who brought in—[Interruption] Yes, you can moan over there, but at least we had a transport policy, I say to the member. We had a policy that took account of roads and rail and coastal shipping. It was not all about one part of transport, so maybe that member ought to get up to date about what transport is about. I was a Minister of Transport who brought in a regional fuel tax that was permissive, that was allowed to be used by different regions for different projects. It was phased in over a number of years and was to be used only if a local region wanted it, if a region had a particular roading, transport, rail, or shipping project that it wanted to use the regional fuel tax for.

Let us go back to the 2008 election and the campaigning by the National Party against a regional fuel tax. National said it was a terrible thing, because the only place that wanted it—we worked in conjunction with the Auckland Regional Council, not needing an accord, not needing all these meetings and legislation that we have to bring in on housing; it was worked through with the council—wanted a regional fuel tax because it wanted to invest in rail, local rail, in Auckland. You know, we are now looking at 5 years on and that could have been started—well started. It was to be used for rail and some of it was to be used for public transport, other public transport. It was also to be used for a piece of road called the Penlink Toll Road, which was going to help open up the Whangaparāoa Harbour into Silverdale so businesses could develop. It was agreed, it was wanted, and what did the National Party do? It campaigned against it, and then, when it became the Government, the first move by Steven Joyce was to repeal the regional fuel tax, a permissive tax based on local people identifying local needs.

And what do we have here? We have a regional fuel tax that covers the whole of New Zealand. It is based not on what local transport needs are but on what the Government wants the money for. So we now have 9c going right across New Zealand regardless of whether anyone is going to win out of this. I agree with Moana Mackey. Anyone who represents a rural area, a provincial area, will be saying: “Hang on a minute, this money is going for some roads to serve the cities, but what about our road maintenance? What about our public transport? We don’t have any.” This money is going to go across the whole of New Zealand. This bill should be called the “National Party U-turn Bill”. It is such cant that National is putting this bill in the House today, passing it through all its stages when National opposed it so much when it was in Opposition.

You know, National opposed things like the hypothecation of all the money that is taken in from road users to go into transport. National opposed that for a long time, but now it makes out it was one of its policies. You see, Government members are so unsure of themselves when it comes to transport. What we do know is we need to protect our rural and provincial area so that they get a fair suck of the sav. We need to ensure that we invest in rail and that we invest in roads and coastal shipping. What has this Government done? It has put its money into roads and it has now brought in a regional fuel tax across New Zealand. Well, I have to say that this is the “U-turn Bill”. That is what its title ought to be, and the National Party has not got the bottle to stand up and defend this tax, which it opposed only 5 years ago.

I move, That the question be now put.

I move, That the report be adopted.