Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I do so choose. When this debate was interrupted at 10 o’clock last night, I was speaking about the vision for transport and urban growth in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland City, one of the great cities of the Pacific and the world, that underlies the intention and the purpose of this bill. I just want to elaborate on that a little bit in the time that I have remaining.

What is that vision for transport and urban growth that this bill will serve and allow for? Well, the vision is one for a city in which people and freight can freely move around; in which people can be connected to different communities across our city; in which the people of Auckland can use modern, efficient public transport to go to work, to go to school, to go to university, to go to the shops, to be connected to our airport, like every modern first-world international city across our world can. It’s for a city which is pleasant to live in, in which our transport system is clean and efficient and reliable, and it is something in that vision that Aucklanders are absolutely crying out for and Aucklanders are prepared to pay for across the board. That is what this bill allows us to achieve.

The thing about Auckland that I covered in my opening remarks is that Auckland is a remarkable city, it is a beautiful city, it is a thriving city, and people in huge numbers from within and from without New Zealand are choosing to settle in Auckland. We have had massive population growth: an additional 180,000 people since the amalgamation in 2010—about 900 people every single week coming to our city. So while we have those wonderful advantages in our city, that growth—that urban growth—provides significant challenges, and what Aucklanders know is that if we don’t put the investment in now to create an efficient and effective congestion-free network in our city, the problems of congestion that we face now in 2018 will simply get worse and worse and worse.

You don’t have to go far in Auckland to find out from people what the consequences of that congestion are. We know at a very high level, from the studies that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and others have done, that it costs Auckland around about $2 billion a year—it costs New Zealand about $2 billion a year in lost productivity. But then you talk to people and businesses at the community level and you find out more. I spoke to the retail manager of a major national retail chain, and he said that about five or six years ago, the trucks in his company could make about five deliveries a day in Auckland. Now, because of the traffic congestion, they can make about three deliveries a day, and that is an immediate and tangible effect in terms of the efficiency of that business and, ultimately, the price that consumers will pay for those goods.

And then there is simply the sheer misery and frustration that is inflicted on Aucklanders every single day as they are just stuck in traffic wasting time—they could be doing productive things at work, but just losing time that they could be spending with their families, enjoying themselves, and living a good life. Congestion is choking our city. But it doesn’t have to be that way, and what this bill is about, and what the Government’s urban growth agenda is about, is saying, “Let’s harness the benefits of growth and not be choked by growth.”

So what the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill does—it says we have that vision for a congestion-free city in which people and freight can move about freely, in which we are connected to our airport, in which we reduce congestion. Might I say that a part of investing in public transport is reducing congestion for those good folks and those good businesses who do still have to use the roads. Many people still will when we have a good public transport system, but by getting as many people as possible on to a modern public transport system we make our existing roading network efficient.

But if we want to achieve that vision, we actually have to have some problem solving. We can’t just keep kicking it down the road, which is what the previous National Government did. We actually have to sit down and do some serious problem solving. What I am greatly heartened by is that—I think, probably for about the first time since the third Labour Government, for a brief, sparkling moment in time—we have a local government in Auckland, led by Mayor Phil Goff, and a central government, the Labour-led Government here in Wellington, who are aligned on working together to solve this problem of congestion, and aligned on an urban growth agenda for our country’s biggest city.

But we’re going to have to work together. We’re going to have to work together on the funding. It’s a big challenge. The previous National-led Government came up with quite a good concept, which was the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) plan, a shared plan between central government and local government to tackle Auckland’s transport challenges. The problem with that plan was that the previous Government, under the previous National Ministers, was so obsessed with building motorways which won’t solve the problem, that it would have actually just made it worse at very best. So we’re going to renegotiate that plan with Auckland Council and have a plan for transport infrastructure that will really tackle congestion.

If I can just leave this thought with colleagues: one single line of modern light rail will carry as much traffic, as many commuters, as three lanes of motorway traffic. So it’s about efficient investment that moves people around our city effectively. Those light rail lines connecting the central city to the rapidly growing north-west of our city, going across to the North Shore, to the hundreds of thousands of residents there who already enjoy the benefits of rapid transit through the bus system, connecting through the Auckland isthmus, which currently has no access to rapid transit, to our airport, to the rapidly growing employment centre just north of the airport, and a modern bus rapid transit system—look a bit cheerier there, Mr Brown, because we’re going to connect your electorate of Botany to the Auckland Airport with a modern bus rapid transit system, and that is going to be of great benefit to the residents of your part of the city. I say this very genuinely as an old east Auckland boy: your residents have the worst access to public transport in Auckland because of decades of under-investment, and under this plan we are going to fix that.

But we’ve got to fund it. We’ve got to be realistic, and Aucklanders are realistic. That’s why this plan is about Aucklanders saying, “Yep, we’re going to agree to invest.” We’re going to invest in the modern public transport system that we need, and the regional fuel tax allows for that. It says to Auckland Council, “You need to front up with a really good plan.”, and we’re going to work with Auckland Council on that to invest in modern public transport, to invest in the transport system that is really going to unlock our city and allow people and freight to move around freely.

And if you do that—if you do the consultation with your community, which is happening at the moment—well, here’s an option that’s going to help fill the funding gap, that the previous Government itself estimated, under their plans, was around about $6 billion over the last 10 years. So we’re not going to ignore that. Here’s a practical plan to do something about it.

Let’s note, as well, that amongst the guffaws from the other side of the House, that previous National Government levied a 14c per litre cumulative fuel tax on all New Zealanders to fund its transport priorities. Well, our transport priority is unlocking the urban growth potential of Auckland, and this is part of our plan to do it. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.

We just heard from the member for Mt Roskill, who described me as the member for Botany, but I’d like to just acknowledge the member for Botany, who’s here in the House. It’s good to see you here.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I was the one that beat you!

That’s right. I think there’s a bit of history between the two of you.

So we’ve heard lots about vision and intention and purpose, and all of those very kind and big words, from the members opposite. We’ve even heard from the Minister that this is a down payment on our Government’s behalf. I’ve heard him say that at least twice in this debate. Well, I’m sorry, Minister Phil Twyford, but this is not a down payment on the Government’s behalf. This will be a down payment on the taxpayers of Auckland, who will be forced to pay this tax, which you will be working on, with the council in Auckland, to make them pay.

So we’ve also heard from other members in this debate—David Clark saying, “I’m glad we’re putting this in place.” He is glad for another tax, because that’s what this Government’s good at. “Let’s tax this.” is probably the best slogan to describe this new Government.

We’ve also heard from other members talking about the different projects which they’re hoping that they’ll get from this money. We’ve heard a list MP in the Labour Party talk about a problem up in Rodney, but there’s no guarantee, because there’s no understanding and there’s no description of where this money will be going to. There has been no list of projects provided to Aucklanders. There’s no list of projects in the legislation as to what this will be going towards.

We’re now in a situation where we’re being asked to give a blank cheque of money to the council so that they can spend it on what they and the Government decide to spend the money on. But we know that this is not needed. Auckland Council has increased its costs by over $800 million over the last four years. There’s been a huge growth in the bureaucracy, and it needs to get its costs under control so that it can fund the infrastructure and the transport needs—and we know that they can do this.

We also know that this process has been a sham. We heard the member opposite talk about how the council is already consulting on a regional fuel tax. Well, if you read the legislation, it says the council should consult on the regional fuel tax once the legislation’s in place. Well, this seems to be the cart before the horse. The council’s already out there consulting on a tax which they have built into their budgets. They’ve built this tax into their budget, so the consultation, asking Aucklanders for their views, is an absolute sham because they’ve already banked the cash and are not being genuine in asking Aucklanders, actually, what they think on this legislation.

Yes, I do represent an electorate in east Auckland: the great electorate of Pakuranga. We heard Michael Wood talk about the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative project. Well, I’m sorry to tell the member, but that’s already funded under the current plans, and it’s already in the plans. So the motorists in my electorate, who will be forced to pay this tax, will be receiving no benefit from it whatsoever. We’ll continue to see money being poured into the city centre with less money going out into the suburbs.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: How do you know?

We don’t know. We don’t know what’s—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Then why do you say it?

Because we’re continuing to see the same old council providing the same old solutions—and one of those solutions is a tramline up the Prime Minister’s electorate—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: You’re making it up.

—which has a benefit-cost ratio of less than—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No, I’m not making it up. Don’t bring me into the debate.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I wouldn’t try to do that.

We know that one of the projects which has been talked about has been a tramline up Dominion Road to the airport, which will take about an hour to get tourists from the airplane into the city, when it takes 20 minutes to go up the Waterview tunnel, which was built under the National Government.

Earlier in the debate another member talked about how the National Government could only build a few highways on the fringe of Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington. Well, I’d like to remind them again of the Waterview tunnel, which is three lanes through the middle of Auckland City and, again, through the Mt Albert electorate. I think that’s something which actually has made a real difference in Aucklanders’ lives, and I think we need to continue to invest in projects like that.

So the National Party’s opposed to this piece of legislation. Transport policy needs to be focused not just on finding more money but on actually finding better solutions and also on Auckland Council cutting costs, reprioritising money, and making sure it’s investing it in the right places. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This is a split call—5 minutes, David Seymour.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to also thank my colleague Shane Jones and the Labour Party whip Kiritapu Allan, who have agreed to split this call so that I might address this very important issue.

I have to say, as an Aucklander, that this is a very sad day. We get to pay and pay and pay for the corporate welfare, the so-called regional development funds—$1 billion of our money hosed out all over rural New Zealand. Then, when we need our own projects in Auckland, where the wealth is generated and where the tax is paid, we find that to get any improvement at all we have to pay an additional tax.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Don’t you support user-pays, David? I thought you’d support user-pays.

In fact, that’s not particularly surprising in this Parliament, because this Government introduces a new tax every single day. Yesterday, it was the introduction of a stealth capital gains tax, and today it is a targeted petrol tax targeted at Auckland.

I heard Phil Twyford—that economic genius on the Government benches—telling me that this is user-pays. Well, actually, for Aucklanders, there’s not a lot of use going on—we’re just paying. We sit in the congestion and pay and pay to idle, because this Government is not committed to building the kind of infrastructure that Auckland needs and deserves and has already paid for.

What they want to build—and what we heard from Michael Wood, on Mt Roskill—is a tramline up and down Dominion Road, which the previous speaker, Simeon Brown, quite rightly identified as taking an hour to get from the CBD to the airport. And that’s the truth. If you’re doing 30 kilometres an hour max, and it’s 20 kilometres to get there, and you’ve got to stop a few times—that’s an hour. Unless this tram is going to be different from every other tram in the world, it’s going to take an hour.

Michael Wood, the representative from Mt Roskill, might want to think a little bit about why trams were removed from Dominion Road in the first place: because the amount of space taken up leads to enormous congestion for his own constituents trying to get into town so that they can work and earn a dollar and pay more tax to his Government. Michael Wood is committing political suicide for Mt Roskill here today. He does not understand the implications—the real implications—for the people of Mt Roskill, and it’s this: pay more tax to idle sitting in traffic stopped by congestion caused by his Government, because the Government says you should be on a tram that’s not going where you’re going.

So this is a sad day for Aucklanders. As if we don’t pay enough tax already. Yesterday, we get an extra tax on our houses; today, we get a tax on our cars. It’s a little bit like that old Beatles song: if you try to walk, they’ll tax your feet; if you try to sit, they’ll tax the seat.

This Government has no answer to any problem other than more and more tax. And it might be OK. If the promise was to complete the Auckland motorway network that has been half built in 60 years, then we might say this wouldn’t be so bad—if we were actually getting something for it. But we are not getting anything. All we’re doing is paying and paying and paying for nothing. It’s not user-pays, because there’s no use; it is just pay. This Government is quite happily taxing us, but they won’t promise anything new to ease the congestion that we’re going to be sitting in while paying the tax—and paying, and paying, and paying.

I’ve got a message for this Government from the people of Auckland. It is that we actually want results from Government. We actually want to be getting value for money. We don’t want to be paying additional taxes for the same level of service. We want better service for the tax we already pay, and if this Government could focus on that for just a moment, they might be a little bit more popular in Auckland. But after few years of this kind of carry-on, they’re going to be a lot less popular in Auckland—I can tell them that tonight.

I call the Hon Shane Jones—five minutes.

That represents a lapse in judgment on the part of my good self. In my zest to create constitutional opportunities so the seeds of democracy could flower, I now have to apologise to Mr Twyford: I conceded five minutes to the ACT member. I fear that I may have to apologise, as well, to my leader. Of course, if that was to happen, it’s not the constitution of New Zealand I’m concerned about; it is the constitution of the Dalmatian Māori from Kaitāia.

I want to stand and support this, and remind the House that it was a former senior parliamentarian, Dr Michael Cullen—Sir Michael Cullen—who championed this in the period of time from late 2007 to 2008. Why did he do that? Because the case still remains. He did that because he felt that it was time that Auckland traffic users, infrastructure users—whether they currently live in Botany Bay or whether they’re passing through from Kaitāia down to the Māori King’s coronation and they buy gas there, they are using the infrastructure of a highly congested city already suffering from the stresses of rapid growth and continual under-investment in key infrastructure. That was the argument, broadly speaking, that that great parliamentarian rolled out and that one of equally significant ambitions, Mr Twyford, has repeated. I won’t sort of dub him at this stage “Sir Phil”—that pleasure may or may not await him.

There’s a key point here, because—I’ll pluck the figure that I’m comfortable using: $170 million, possibly more, per annum, added to by another $170 million, dollar for dollar, from central government, to do what? To enable Auckland, and its civic leaders, and its business stakeholders, and central government to expedite the delivery of overdue infrastructure in our largest city.

Now, there are some additional reasons as to why we’re stressed. An indiscriminate, unfettered immigration policy, like a half-crazed pet let off the leash, has worsened—worsened—the situation, but we are dealing with that in a slightly different way. But let the House know that it is not unreasonable that this impost sit upon the cost of fuel for people that are deriving a benefit but that also need to move more effectively and efficiently through Auckland as we create, via our housing strategy, a better quality of life, better communities, and improved infrastructure.

So I think shouts to the contrary actually demonstrate that the last crowd had nine years to do—what? Now, I have to confess, there’s one thing that Bill English did get right: he said, in a fit of pique, that the town and country planners actually have more power than the Ministers of the Crown or parliamentarians in terms of cutting through red tape or breaking down the barriers that confront Auckland homeowners, Auckland home aspirants, or businesses seeking to expand supply of residential housing in Auckland. On that part I did agree with him. What I did not agree with was the way in which the former Government talked a great deal about expanding supply in Auckland, but delivered precious few actual results.

I accept they did that partly because they have a lot invested in supporting the people who currently benefit magnificently from the strictures that presently inhibit property development in Auckland. There are land bankers whose level of aspirational wealth is higher than the roof of this House. There are others who enjoy the escalating value of their property—good for some if you’ve got it, but if you’re a young parent, if you’re a 25-, 28-, or 32-year-old, if you’re young Janet and John, kotahi tamaiti, e rua tamariki—with several children—I don’t think that that’s the quality of Auckland life that parliamentarians should have the next generation aspire to. In fact, I’ve heard on many occasions the man from Epsom say he can’t afford to buy a whare in the place that he represents. If that does not give the lie to what he’s just said, then it beggars belief.

I just want to carry on little bit. Auckland now goes right up to Ngāti Whātua country, Te Uri o Hau. It goes up to Rodney, and we need to ensure that some of the benefits are spread in that direction.

I move, That the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill 2018 be reported to the House by Monday, 21 May 2018, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I want to explain to the House why I’m seeking this earlier report back, and in doing so I want to acknowledge that the principles of this Parliament normally require a period of six weeks for public notification before submissions close, and then a period of time for the select committee to hear submissions, to receive departmental advice, to deliberate, and eventually to report back to this House.

There are exceptions to the regular process. The most shortened of those is where the House takes urgency, with no select committee process, and there are occasions when that is necessary. I do not consider it’s necessary in this instance, and I think it right that both those who will be affected by the regional fuel tax and the members on the other side of the House have the opportunity to provide input into this bill. However, in this instance a shortened period at select committee is necessary. It’s necessary in order to enable the regional fuel tax to be implemented in Auckland at the start of the new accounting financial year and by the time of expiry of Auckland Council’s targeted rate, known as the interim transport levy, on 30 June 2018. Secondly, there is a critical and urgent need for transport infrastructure in Auckland. A shortened report-back time will enable projects to get under way as soon as possible, and it will allow Auckland Council and the Government together to enter into contracts and, finally, to get cracking on fixing Auckland’s transport system.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. The National Party opposes this shortened report back and I say that the House should really think carefully about the continued use by the Government of its majority to curtail proper parliamentary scrutiny of important pieces of legislation—and actually, by the trend we’re seeing, important pieces of legislation that involve taxation and that involve benefits to individuals—and whether this House should continue to allow this.

The reason I say this is because I think we’re starting to see quite a worrying trend by this Government—a Government made up of parties which would have been very opposed, with a very principled view that they would have taken when they were sitting on this side of the House. They were the ones often saying that the curtailing of the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation should not happen. We’re seeing time after time now, in a very short space of this Government’s existence, that they are using their majority in a way which I feel is actually inappropriate.

This isn’t the first time. We saw not that long ago the brightline test Supplementary Order Paper coming into the House without select committee scrutiny. The paid parental leave legislation was done under urgency; it skipped select committee last year. The Family Incomes Package was put through under urgency last year, where select committee processes were skipped, and now we are seeing that the regional fuel tax legislation, whilst going to a select committee, is having a significantly reduced report-back time.

I’m told by people that follow these things closer than I do that individuals that wish to submit on this bill—when you take out the time required for the committee to do initial briefings and the time for the committee to hear submissions and time for the committee to consider the possible changes they may wish to make—will have approximately eight days to do so.

Are we really saying in this Parliament that a Minister can present to the House a piece of legislation which will implement a tax that we’ve not seen in this country since the 1990s, and that it can go through an extremely shortened report-back period, which will result in only about eight days for submissions? Is that really a good process? Is this really so urgent that it has to be done this quickly? I, in fact, think that this should go through a proper process; that New Zealanders should have an opportunity to submit.

We’re going to hear—possibly, in contributions on this debate; we have heard it already in the last debate—that Aucklanders want this and that this is required and it’s necessary. Well, I think that should actually be tested properly through a select committee process. New Zealanders—and it’s not just Aucklanders in this case—will be impacted by this from 2021. They should have an opportunity to submit as well, because it’s not just about an Auckland issue. It’s all been dressed up as being about Auckland and all the consultation that we’ve heard about has supposedly been about just Auckland, but actually this will impact on New Zealanders as well.

There are also varying accounts of what Aucklanders actually think—if we want to talk about Aucklanders—and I think that should be tested in a full way in select committee. On the one hand, we have the council saying 50 percent of people are saying they support the regional fuel tax and 40 percent are opposed. Then we have the AA saying that 38 percent of people oppose the regional fuel tax and only 35 percent support it. So you’ve got the Auckland Council, who wants the ability to tax more, saying New Zealanders and Aucklanders want it, and you’ve got the AA, who actually represents the people that will be paying the tax, saying Aucklanders don’t actually want it. These are the matters that should be tested thoroughly by a select committee, these are the matters that the select committee should have a decent amount of time to consider, and these are the matters that Aucklanders should have more than eight days to submit on.

I think it’s appalling that we are doing this yet again—that the Labour Government is yet again curtailing the ability for New Zealanders to submit on legislation by using their majority to reduce report-back periods. I suggest we should be allowing a select committee to have a full and proper process on this. There’s also an important, I think, principle at stake here, where the Minister’s saying that this has to go through quickly so a new tax can be put in place by 1 July. But in the bill there is a requirement for the Minister to make an assessment on a proposal put to him by the council. That proposal has to be prepared by the council after the council has outlined projects and consulted. The council has not had the opportunity to do that thoroughly yet, because the council does not yet know what the Minister’s going to put in place through the Government policy statement.

So when you work through this process, you’ve got a Minister saying that this tax is going to be important and must be in place by 1 July. He can only approve that tax after receiving a proposal—a proposal which hasn’t even yet been prepared because he hasn’t done the initial stages himself by issuing a Government policy statement. He is completely pre-empting a decision that he would have to make based on advice that he should be receiving from a council that is not yet able to give any advice because it is not yet able to formulate that proposal.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: It’s all too hard, isn’t it!

It’s not all too hard, Mr Twyford. What we have here is Mr Twyford and the Labour Party being assisted by a council who wants to put in place a tax and doesn’t want Aucklanders to have a real say on it. I say that the Labour Party should be true to their principles. When he was sitting along these benches, he would have been one of the first people up on his feet saying Aucklanders and New Zealanders should have a real say on legislation, and we heard that time after time.

Let’s see them put their money where their mouth is. Let’s see them actually vote in line with what they said when they were in Opposition. It is not right to curtail the ability for New Zealanders to submit on this. It is not right to say, “A new tax is going to be put in place, but we’re going to take away your rights to a normal parliamentary scrutiny process to submit on that.” It is an appalling approach that the Government is proposing to take, and this party will be opposing it quite vigorously.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise too to oppose this shortened report-back time for this bill. Fundamentally, this is a matter of our democracy. The proposal from the Minister in charge of this bill, Phil Twyford, represents an erosion of the democracy being exercised by New Zealanders. Now, he made a point when he was trying to substantiate or justify his proposal—he made a point around the basis of need. Well, quite frankly, that is terminological inexactitude. There is no absolute need here. There is simply a desire by that Minister and that Government.

So first of all, if there was a true need for this to be in place for Auckland by 1 July, there would be some sort of calamity that would befall Auckland on 2 July, and there isn’t. He certainly didn’t evidence one. He certainly didn’t put one forward. There were no grounds that say that if this is not in place for 1 July, the huge negative consequences would be X, Y, or Z.

Furthermore, he made a point that Auckland has transport needs and they need to be fixed right now. Well, actually, it would be a good thing if they could be fixed quickly—that is true. But again, it expressed a desire as a need. So if the Minister is going to justify eroding or undermining the democratic process here, I think he has an obligation to the House and to New Zealand to be able to articulate the actual need, and a need is separate from his or his Government’s desire. Quite frankly, his and their failure to get this bill into this House in a timely manner does not create a need. It certainly heightens their desire to push it through quickly, but it does not create a need.

Now, in Opposition, those members had nine years to work up policy like this, even on this policy, which they did talk about quite well in advance of the election. They had all that time to do the work—

💬 Hon Member: He could have had a bill—

—to get it ready. He could have had a bill written up. He could’ve done that. He could have had it in a shape and a form where it would’ve been ready to be introduced to this House very quickly after the Government was formed. But they didn’t—they didn’t. Their failure to do the work does not create a need that this House needs to address by shortening the report back. It does not.

But what it would do is it would prevent New Zealanders from across the country from making full and comprehensive submissions and having ample time to be heard in their views on this particular bill, because let’s make no mistake about it; it’s not just Auckland. While the implementation cannot happen before 2021, the bill certainly does allow for regional taxes across the rest of New Zealand, so the rest of New Zealand has a right to have their voices heard—something that the Minister is seeking to remove from them by having a shortened process.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Before the dinner break we were hearing the debate on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill—the instruction to the committee debate. Brett Hudson had the call. He has six minutes and 45 seconds remaining.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I look forward to these precious minutes. As I was saying before the dinner break, the Government and the Minister of Transport have not given any substantive reason as to why there is a genuine need, why it is actually necessary, to truncate the select committee process for this bill. In fact, by doing so, it has a couple of effects. The first effect is that it doesn’t permit potential submitters from right across New Zealand to be able to have the opportunity to have a full and comprehensive submission and a good, long look at this bill and how it might actually affect them, because, in actual fact, the framework of the bill can do just that—the mechanisms in the bill can do just that.

But the other thing, which is the point my colleague Mr Ross mentioned in his contribution, is that once you consider inside of the report-back time frame, which is Monday, 21 May, I believe—when you consider that time frame, when you consider initial reports to a committee, when you consider all of the things a committee will do, such as a departmental report, going through revision tracks—in actual fact, the amount of time that a submitter will have, or submitters will have, to make submissions on this bill is eight days. Eight days for a bill that has the ability to apply a new tax, not only just in Auckland—that’s just 1 July—but the mechanics of a new tax across all of New Zealand.

Actually, New Zealanders will, I think, be looking at this and they’ll be casting their mind back to the rhetoric they heard before the election, which was that there will be no new taxes introduced before the 2020 election—except the Auckland fuel tax. No one’s going to claim that the now Government hadn’t said the Auckland fuel tax, but their bill puts that tax in place for any part of New Zealand that chooses to put a proposal forward. So that is something New Zealanders will be concerned about, and New Zealanders deserve to have the opportunity to submit on that, because it’s something that could be very important to them and the Government want to not quite deny it but they want to truncate it so much that the real opportunity will not exist the way that our democracy says it should.

The trouble is that this is not the first or only time. Just a few days ago in this House, we were talking about how this Government had introduced a new measure on to a taxation bill—the brightline test, the five-year threshold. They introduced that the day after select committee—another case where they don’t give New Zealanders an opportunity to submit, or an ample opportunity to submit, on what is a new tax. They, again, are showing a wilful neglect and disregard of the democratic rights of New Zealanders, not just in Auckland—because this is not just in Auckland—but across the country.

I have to say that from this side of the House, it sounded to me like the Minister thought he was being very magnanimous by deigning not to do this under urgency, that by choosing not to do it under urgency, as the Government has already done on more than one occasion, such as their Family Incomes Package—on more than one occasion, they’ve rammed legislation through under urgency, absolutely denying any opportunity for a select committee process for the people of New Zealand—he made it sound like he was doing them an enormous favour by shortening their allowable time for submissions down from the standard of six months to two. He was doing them an enormous favour because he wasn’t going to put it through under urgency.

Well, actually, I think that illustrates for New Zealanders just what this Government and their support partners really think about the democratic process and the right for New Zealanders to have their voices heard by the members of this Parliament and have them heard as part of the legislative process. Quite frankly, if we reflect back on what is only just a few months of this new—what is it, five long months of this new Government, but, none the less, if we reflect back on that, what we’re seeing already is a pattern forming that this is a Government that doesn’t want New Zealanders to have their say as they push legislation through, doesn’t want to hear their voices, doesn’t want to give them an opportunity to appear and put their best case forward.

So, instead, what we have is a proposal in the House which doesn’t justify a need but clearly expresses the desire of the Minister and of this Government—doesn’t express a need but pitches the need as the reason behind truncating a process, and, in doing so, it absolutely undermines our democracy. I oppose this instruction.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you. Look, I did want to come down and take a call on this Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. I want to commend the speakers who have gone before us from this side of the House, the honourable Jami-Lee Ross and Brett Hudson, who have both spoken very eloquently.

This is a very important matter for this House to debate, because what we have here is a referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the Government wants to have report back to this House by 21 May. Now, if you’re sitting at home and listening, you might think, well, from 28 March to 21 May, that sounds like a reasonable amount of time, but what those of us in this House know is that a report-back date set at 21 May—not only is it four months short of the traditional select committee period of six months, which, generally, is the bare minimum needed to properly evaluate legislation; and, frankly, there is any number of pieces of legislation currently before this House that are seeking extensions to the six-month period because the select committee can’t get it done—this is a two-month period.

Now, what that means, though, to submitters is that submitters will have eight working days to submit on this legislation. Now, we’re not talking here about something, sort of, prosaic and a matter of form; this is a brand-new tax that people right across New Zealand are going to be subject to. I want to emphasise that point, because Labour in Opposition and during the campaign did talk about an Auckland fuel tax, but never once do I recall them saying, “We’re going to bring in a 10c a litre tax across New Zealand. So, actually, it could apply in Gore, it could apply in Fairlie, it could apply in Motueka, it could apply in Pētone, it could apply in Masterton—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! If I could just ask the member to come back to the specifics of the motion rather than speaking generally about the bill itself.

Well, Madam Assistant Speaker, my point is the time that submitters have to submit on the bill, and to express that, you have to be able to reference the breadth of the bill and the impact of it, because it is not a well-signalled bill, and that is the point I’m making.

During the campaign, there was no reference to a fuel tax that would affect the whole of New Zealand. That has only become apparent very recently, and now, in a period of eight working days, the whole of New Zealand, who had little idea that this Government was going to come in and put a 10c a litre fuel tax on them—now they’re going to have to get their head around what that means for them, how it fits into their transport planning frameworks, and form a view and submit on it. That is unreasonable, to say the very least. I would say it’s arrogant, it’s outrageous, and it’s egregious, and, unfortunately, it is becoming all too common a trademark of this Government.

It was only last night in the House I was talking about the five-year brightline test, or the extension of the brightline test to five years, which is—make no mistake—a capital gains tax by stealth, with zero consultation. Now, the Government may think they’re doing some sort of favour to the people of New Zealand, giving them a whole eight days to submit on this new tax. It is not good enough, and it cannot be allowed to be the pattern of behaviour. Democracy deserves better than eight days to submit on a new tax.

Now, one of the other points that I did want to make, in talking about the importance of the time to consider and submit on this bill, is this is not a tax bill—and, frankly, every tax bill should be given the utmost of scrutiny, because it is all very well for this House to impose legislation; it is people who pay the tax that deserve to be consulted. But this is not just a tax bill that changes a rate, or we have a tax and they’re changing a parameter; this is an entirely new legislative structure.

So when you look at the legislation, we have page after page of discussion about how a regional fuel tax scheme is drafted, what it must contain, the particular description of the projects, the cost-benefit analysis, how it’s going to contribute, the completion dates for various projects, the consultation requirements—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Can I bring you back to the motion, please. Thank you.

Madam Assistant Speaker, this is critical to the motion. All of these are matters people will want to consult on. This is what people consult on at select committee: the content of the bill. My point—very obviously, I would have thought—is that when you have an entirely new framework with substantial detail that people will want to engage on, even if they’re happy with the concept of a regional fuel tax, there is a lot of intricate detail in how that should be framed, what should be included, how consultation should work, and how the Minister should make their decision under section 65J, inserted by clause 5 of the bill. These are very intricate issues of detail.

It’s not a black and white, binary issue: should we have one or not? This is a complex piece of legislation setting up an entirely new taxation system, and to suggest that people need only eight days to consider whether that’s appropriate in the first instance, necessary across all of New Zealand when that hasn’t been flagged, and then to work through the specific detail—and members of this House will know very well, when the members of the public submit to select committees, they go to real trouble and care to go right through the bill and identify issues where they think something has been missed, where they don’t think the consequences will be what is intended, where there hasn’t been sufficient description and particularity, and where there isn’t going to be the information for the consultation to work or for certainty as to how a Minister will make a decision. This is critical to the motion before us, because we’re talking here about how long is an appropriate period of time for the select committee to be able to consider this legislation.

Within that is the necessary sub-question of how long should the public have to submit. My point, very clearly, is that when you have a bill setting up an entirely new tax framework with significant critical components as to how the process works to propose, consult, and decide on that, quite apart from the issue of the rate, quite apart from the issue of the extension across New Zealand, it is outrageous to suggest that an eight-working-day period is sufficient for the public to submit.

Members listening to this debate and watching on television, I suggest, will reach their own conclusions, but the conclusion that this side of the House cannot escape reaching is that this is a Government that doesn’t want public scrutiny. They don’t want public scrutiny. This wasn’t important enough to be in their 100-day plan. If this was as urgent as they want to tell us, it would have been in the 100-day plan. No, it wasn’t. It has come before the House now, and yet they want to rush it through and ensure that there actually isn’t proper time for discussion.

The issue of transport in Auckland is an ongoing issue, and colleagues of mine have traversed that in the first reading debate, the merits of the proposal. What I’m saying is that it is absolutely egregious to suggest that a framework like this doesn’t deserve public consultation, and that this is a Government that is too arrogant to even want to hear it, too scared of criticism to want to hear from the public, too worried about negative backlash for a tax and spend Government to want to give the public time. Their greatest hope is that the public don’t notice, it goes through, they increase revenue, and spend, spend, spend.

Well, this side of the House didn’t spend nine years getting our economy working, getting New Zealand growing, and reducing the tax burden on New Zealand to see this Government come in with a callous disregard for people who work hard every day. At the very least, they deserve a chance to have a say, and if this Government cared a jot about New Zealand, they would be welcoming that and not trying to shut it down.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this call on what is an issue of the utmost constitutional importance to this country. Let me just traverse a little bit of the historical context that got us here. This Parliament is not quite unique but is extremely rare in the world for being unicameral, for not having an Upper House that scrutinises laws that have gone through the Lower House. As you know, behind us is the Legislative Council Chamber, which once upon a time contained our Upper House. Some years ago, in the middle of the last century, the so-called suicide squad, a group of members elected themselves into that Chamber and voted for their own dissolution. The trade-off at that time—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: David, we’re not going back—we’re not going back.

—just while we’ve got some time—is that the select committee process was strengthened in order to carry out the roles that an Upper House had played in scrutinising the quality of legislation. I think that’s an interesting point to debate: whether it can truly be effective when the electoral system used to choose select committee members is exactly the same as the system used to choose members of the House of legislators. But, nevertheless, that’s the system we have, and other countries—of course, Australia, Canada, the United States, the UK—have a different electoral system to choose their Upper House, meaning that if one side of politics can win one House there’s a good chance they will nevertheless have to contend with the other House that has been elected differently through a different electoral system.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Is this about the bill?

This is about the motion, Mr Twyford, and I think Madam Assistant Speaker will agree. The fact of the matter is that we have very great store placed on our select committee process because it is the substitute for our Upper House, which tonight lies empty and has done for over six decades.

So it is of the utmost importance that people are able to submit and that members of this House are able to scrutinise legislation in the select committee, because that is all we have. I’d appeal to members of the Labour Party to reflect upon their own heritage, because in the history of this Parliament they have played a critical role in cleaning up some of the wild west politics that used to happen late at night in the era of Muldoon. They introduced a Constitution Act in 1986, which has dramatically improved the sophistication of the functioning of this Parliament.

The Constitution Act, among other things, says, in not so many words “no taxation without representation”. It says that the executive, the Government, cannot levy a tax unless it has the permission of Parliament. Well, with this truncated select committee process, where people will have only two months instead of the usual six month process to feed into, we’re going to find that while the House might vote for the bill, it cannot honestly say that the proper legislative procedure has been undertaken to ratify this new tax. I would put it to you—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Why did that member support the truncated process for asset sales?

Because there was no taxation involved. Taxation, as set out in the Constitution Act, is the most important role that this Parliament has, ensuring that taxes are collected with consent, and the parliamentary process includes being prepared—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: How many taxes have been changed under urgency?

I beg your pardon? You’ll have to open your mouth a little wider when you speak—that member. But the fact of the matter is, we cannot honestly say that we have carried out our role under the Constitution Act if we do not allow the select committee process to scrutinise a bill that amounts to introducing a new tax.

I’d appeal further. The members on the front bench of the Labour Party seem to have forgotten their party’s history, but I’d appeal to some of the backbench members—the Duncan Webbs, the Chlöe Swarbricks, who missed out on the ministerial limo this time—and remind them that while they may be members of a party that has executive members, they are not part of the executive. It is their job to be parliamentarians and help hold the executive to account, no matter which party it may be from. So I just put out that appeal to them, because it might not just be the right thing to do constitutionally but it might also be the right thing to do for the future of their political careers.

I can tell them that the people of New Zealand will place great value in members of this House who prove themselves to be democrats and to have some guts and gumption and maybe be a little bit fearless. I can see Duncan Webb. He’s just thinking, “What did I really come here for? To make better policy and hold the executive to account, or simply—”

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Not a history lesson.

Hey, we’re only up to 1986 and I’ve got four minutes to go.

He’s thinking, “What did I really come here for? Is it to make good policy and hold the executive to account, or violate the Constitution Act and ram through new taxes, violating the spirit of this House, and irritating and annoying the people of New Zealand who sit at home, who know that their basic rights, their most cherished rights in a democracy, are being violated because they will not have the practical ability to submit on the introduction of a new tax?”

Eight working days is all the time that the people who send us here and pay the bills will have to comment on this new bill. That is a travesty and those people will be looking at these parliamentarians—these executive members at least, who are not held to account by their own backbenchers—and they’ll be asking themselves this: “Why is it that these full-time professional politicians get all day and all night to make laws affecting me, but I, who have a job and am busy—ironically trying to earn the money to pay the taxes that this Government is levying on me—have to drop everything and submit in eight days in order to be heard?”

This is a Government that talks an awful lot about inclusion, the politics of kindness, and making sure that everybody in society is able to have a stake in the way that this society functions. That was the marketing ploy, that was the pledge, that was the smiling face of this Government when it asked the voters for consent to govern. Given the power to govern, suddenly this Government turns around and says, “We don’t think that we need to make it practical for you to submit.”—even when they’re levying new taxes, even when they’re violating the Constitution Act, even when people have no other way of having any impact on the legislative process, now that they’re all elected, other than submitting to a select committee, and they are to be given only eight days to do that.

I can see the New Zealand First member there, and he’s sitting there thinking—Darroch Ball, I think he is. He’s sitting there thinking, “I came here to represent the people, the real people, the grassroots people.” And he’s just thinking, “This guy Seymour, he’s right. He has a point. It should be six months that the people get to submit. We should not allow temporarily empowered politicians to ram these kinds of laws down people’s throats the way this Government proposes to do. Today’s the day. Tonight’s the night. I, Darroch Ball, should take a stand and cross the floor and—”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m sure there’s a point of order against that somewhere in the rule book.

I’m appealing. The purpose of debate, Madam Assistant Speaker, is that members appeal to each other in the hope that they can find their better senses, and I have zeroed in on Darroch Ball because I think he’s my best prospect of a man of principle who came here to serve the average person in New Zealand who just wants a Parliament that is responsive to them, that is not arrogant, and gives them an opportunity to participate in the democratic process at Parliament—which is their place.

So in conclusion—or getting to it, anyhow—I’d just like to say that this genuinely is a bad look for us as parliamentarians. It’s a bad look for this Government. There is no urgency and no justification for making it impractical for New Zealanders to submit on a bill that affects them. It is elitist to have such a short time so that only the few who have lots of spare time will be able to submit. And if this Government knows what’s good for it, constitutionally and politically, it will allow six months—

Thank you. Excuse me, the member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think we should all be disappointed here tonight. This is the icing on the cake of what has been a very flawed process from the start. The reasons that we’ve heard from Minister Twyford tonight is that this should be in place by the new accounting year and at the expiration of the interim transport levy in Auckland Council. Well, those who know about the interim transport levy, as I do, will know that that didn’t go through a public submission process at all, and now it appears that there’s a similar theme here tonight, and it’s the same theme that’s attempting to be undertaken here with the regional fuel tax.

Council consultation on this tax has been a sham, and now the Government is doubling down on that. They’re bending over backwards to give the council what they want at the sacrifice of Parliament’s scrutiny—and public scrutiny, for that matter. We owe it to Aucklanders to give them a full and proper parliamentary process, so why the rush here tonight? The mayor himself says in his mayoral proposal for their budget that he might not get the regional fuel tax by the end of this year. So you’ve got the mayor recognising that there are alternative options and that the time frames for this tax need not be fixed by 1 July this year. He left the door open for there to be the fuel tax by the end of this year; the mid-year time frame is self-imposed by the Government—a very interesting point.

So council’s consulting on a 10-year plan: 10 years of budgets. Why do we have here what appears to be only an eight-day—eight-working-day—process for the public? Explain that to me—a massive programme of tax and spend and we’ve only got eight days for the public to scrutinise it. Is that enough for those outside Auckland to scrutinise the effects for them down the line? Do they know and understand this isn’t just a rush job for Auckland; it will and could and it very may well affect all of New Zealand.

The effort that’s been put into rushing this bill and this tax means that no one really knows the full impact or the cost-benefit analysis. The bill says that the Ministry of Transport doesn’t know, it says that the council doesn’t know, and, if we go back to the mayor’s own proposal, he’s saying that the regional fuel tax is not the only option. So how do we know, with this rushed process, that the interim transport levy should be replaced by the regional fuel tax? Will we have enough time to scrutinise whether one is better than the other when we don’t even know, in the bill’s wording itself, what the impact and the full impact will be. If you remove a full select committee process, you are gagging the public’s ability—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. The Government is gagging the public’s full ability to understand and know the impact that they face as individuals. This is real impact on people and their livelihoods—their ability to get to work; their employers—the effect on their employers; and their daily lives. A rushed process is not a good process.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a sad day in this Parliament to be rising to speak on this motion to truncate the process for submissions and for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to report back on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. This is a day when we as a Parliament will be telling New Zealanders across this country that their voices are not valued when it comes to how we’re going to address the transport issues. We’ve heard from the Government about all the things and the ambitions and the visions that they have, but now we’re saying to the public that they are not welcome—except if they can hurry up and get something in within eight days—to have their voice heard by the select committee.

One of the other elements of this, which hasn’t been raised so far, is that this is not just a tax—a petrol tax—but it also includes an increase in GST. That’s a whole other issue which needs to be raised, and a select committee can look into that and the costs and the implications of that.

There are a wide range of stakeholders who deserve the right to have their say on this issue. I think of councils up and down this country who won’t have time to put together submissions because their governing body meetings, or their council meetings, won’t sit over the next eight days. I think of ratepayer organisations whose next meetings won’t be over the next eight days and that won’t have time to be able to put forward and put together a select committee and hear from their members. I think of organisations like the Automobile Association, freight companies, and other organisations and associations, which have the responsibility to consult with their members before putting forward submissions on this important issue.

All of these organisations need the time and need the ability to be able to put forward their submission, and then for the Parliament to actually take into account, to listen, to hear those submissions, and to have real engagement with the people of this country. We’re often criticised as politicians for being those who are quick to act and slow to listen. Well, this is an opportunity for us to show and demonstrate that we’re willing to listen to New Zealanders and let them have their say.

There’re also a number of important issues which need to be addressed by the select committee, and submissions are an important part of allowing those issues to be addressed so that the legislation, if it is to pass—and I hope it isn’t—is actually better legislation. There are issues of fairness and equity which are at the heart of this regressive tax, which will impact on the voters in the Labour Party parts of Auckland and South Auckland and west Auckland as well, who will be adversely affected to a greater level by this tax because they live further away from places of employment or from the city centre. Those people in the electorates represented on the other side of the House deserve the right to be able to have their say and to be able to put their submissions in.

There are issues of price spreading, and there are issues of avoidance and market distortions. These are technical issues which require people with experience, with the ability to do some analysis, and with the ability to get on and do some of the work which needs to be done to put in their submissions.

So I just want to finish off by saying it’s a sad day to be standing here with a Government which is not prepared to listen—not prepared to listen to the voices of New Zealand on what is another tax. There should be no taxation without representation, and they’ve got rid of the representation but are carrying on with their taxation. What a shame.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.