Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

The key clause in Part 2 of this bill is in respect of the application of the GST to the regional fuel tax. I particularly on this clause want to challenge the New Zealand First Party because their leader has given speeches, and I have it on record, in almost every corner of New Zealand, calling it a gross injustice of a tax on a tax—that imposing GST on a fuel tax is wrong. The part that has me gobsmacked is that not once in this debate has the leader of New Zealand First, who can give the speech in every corner of New Zealand that it’s wrong to impose a tax on a tax—neither he—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but it has come time for me to leave the chair for the dinner break.

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

Prior to the dinner break I was making the point that in Part 2 of this bill and in clause 7 in respect of GST, we are passing a proposed provision that would make absolutely explicit the application of GST to this regional petrol tax. I commented that when I searched our dear friend “Mr Google”, I found 234 references to the Rt Hon Winston Peters saying that a tax on a tax was wrong.

In fact, let me just go through the communities where Mr Peters made that statement: he made it in Invercargill, he made it in Queenstown, he made it in Dunedin, he made it in Greymouth, he made it in Christchurch, I’ve got a record of him saying it in the Marlborough Express—I say to my colleague Stuart Smith—he said it in the Nelson Mail, he said it in the Dominion Post, he said it in Taranaki, and he said it in the Manawatū. He said, in every corner of New Zealand, that imposing GST on the excise tax was wrong. In fact, he used even stronger language—he said it was immoral. Well here’s my question: why is it possible for New Zealand First—Jenny Marcroft—to give speeches in every corner of this land decrying GST on the excise tax and then not only not give a single speech in this Chamber but vote for it. There’s an “h” word for that, which I’m not allowed to use.

But I challenge members opposite, and particularly the representative from New Zealand First: how come you can campaign, by my record, in seven elections as New Zealand First policy that putting a tax on a tax is wrong and then vote for it? I’d love to hear an explanation from Labour members opposite as to how the acting Prime Minister can so blatantly act completely against such a clear public record of opposing GST on an excise tax. Or has this Government descended to that point—“Well, it doesn’t matter a toss what we said to the electorate.”—for New Zealand First to say “It does not matter what we said to electors, we are just breaching our word.”?

I say that the last Government that so blatantly breached its word was the Labour Government from 1984 to 1990, and it got tossed out of office in the biggest landslide in the history of this New Zealand Parliament. I say to members that unless they have a death wish, unless they too want to be thrown out for so blatantly dishonouring what you have said to communities all over New Zealand—now I know I have the attention of Ms Marcroft, I say to her: why has your party told communities all over New Zealand that you oppose a GST? [Bell rung]

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Why is it that the clock, in terms of my speaking time, provides me for four minutes and yet the bell has rung?

Just for members’ information, if the time left on the clock—and the member will remember I said that he had four minutes remaining. When it’s less than five minutes, we count up, not down, and so the member’s four minutes has expired.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I rise to take a call on Part 2 of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. My intent here is to include an amendment to clause 10(5) where we insert a new section 34B(3) into the Local Government Act 2002. So what we’re talking about here, and I think it’s appropriate just to reflect on section 34B(1) and (2)—so this is additional information for the regional fuel tax schemes. What we’re proposing under those two, indeed, in the current proposal of the bill, is that “The regional council of an RFT region”—regional fuel tax region—“in its annual report,” must report on the revenue paid to the council, it must report on how that revenue was applied, which projects, and for what purposes that was allocated, and also any progress with respect to the programme of capital projects. So that was new subsection (1), and then under new subsection (2) it goes on to outline some of the definitions within that to capture that succinctly.

So what I am proposing here with new subsection (3) is to actually signal the intent—so a precursor, if you will—to that original subpart requiring a report on the progress of the revenue and associated expenditure, and actually requiring an outline of that in advance. So the wording I am proposing is “In conjunction with councils application for a Regional Fuel Tax councils must produce a report for ratepayers on their forecasted spending priorities in relation to the revenue obtained from the RFT and make this publicly available.” As I mentioned, it’s about signalling the intent so that ratepayers can justifiably have an understanding of what their council is proposing to cover with their request for a regional fuel tax.

Of course, the regional fuel tax has to be for specific purposes within that council’s jurisdiction and should not be to cover poor funding management, as we are actually seeing under the Auckland Council at the moment. Indeed, actually, we’ve heard already under the discussion last night of Part 1 that had Mayor Phil Goff met his obligation, his promise, his commitment to reduce council expenditure, there would actually be no need for this regional fuel tax.

That aside, and coming back to my proposal here, this is what I’m proposing to be a requirement to make it publicly notified in advance what the intent is of those spending priorities alongside the application process for councils. Really, we’re trying to demonstrate appropriate transparency. We’ve heard a lot from this Government about transparency and how important that is. It would be fantastic if we saw that demonstrated as well. Although that is questionable—and certainly on this side we haven’t seen it demonstrated anywhere near what we would like to—that is what we should be seeing from all levels of governance. Certainly in this aspect, in the application for a regional fuel tax the amendment I’m proposing under the Local Government Act 2002, would require those councils to be fully transparent, up front, so their ratepayers can, indeed, have a clear understanding on what their proposal is, how that’s forecasted to be spent, and the objectives envisaged to be obtained as a result of that.

So, yes, this may create, and likely will create, additional work for the council in having to outline that detail, but it is important and justified, I believe, in giving that transparency to their ratepayers. Also, when you go through that sort of a process, what it actually does is help crystallise the focus or the priorities in terms of what you’re achieving to really reflect on what the aspects are that are critical to any particular proposal, rather than perhaps getting caught up in some of the higher-level or more pie-in-the-sky wishes that might indeed come off the back of an application being expanded into areas that could perhaps be frivolous.

So really, just to recap, we’re looking at, here, including a precursor to the already proposed new section 34B(1) and (2)—although it will come in as section 34B(3). That would provide, in advance, an outline of what we’re anticipating it to be spent on under these sections. I look forward to taking another call shortly on the GST Act. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let me make some comments in response to the last couple of contributions.

We’ve heard a great number of contributions from members on the Opposition benches about clause 7 in Part 2, which requires that GST be added on to the regional fuel tax when it’s paid by fuel distributors to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)—so not at the retail end, not at point of sale, but by the fuel distributors—and a number of Opposition members have suggested that this increases the cost of fuel to Auckland consumers from 10c to 11.5c.

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Apologies to interrupt the Minister—we are having trouble hearing. The microphone perhaps could do with adjustment, or I’m not sure if it’s working.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sure the technicians have heard and, hopefully, have resolved the issue. We’ll give it another go.

Thank you for that very considerate contribution. So the suggestion that’s been made by Opposition members is that the requirement in clause 7 that GST be paid by the fuel distributors to NZTA at the wholesale end, not at the retail end, is somehow adding to the cost that’s being paid by consumers. That suggestion is quite wrong.

All of those businesses will be registered for GST. They claim back the GST in the regular course of their interest, so they don’t pass that on. So it’s quite wrong, and shows a real misunderstanding by Opposition members. The fuel companies are required to charge GST on the retail price of the fuel that they sell, not the wholesale. So whether or not they have to pay GST, which they would because undoubtedly all of them will be registered for GST, that amount does not get passed on to the consumer.

I want to comment on Tim van de Molen’s amendment, which seeks to add some obligations on to the councils who would be taking advantage of the provisions in this bill to establish a regional fuel tax. Mr van de Molen would like requirements for full consultation publicly notified in advance what the projects are going to be spent on, and it’s an attempt to try to impose some kind of transparency on it. Well, I want to say to Mr van de Molen that there are already extensive obligations on any local territorial authority, any regional council, who wants to take advantage of the regional fuel tax bill. They’re required to fully consult under the terms of the local government legislation and, as Lawrence Yule well knows, those requirements are onerous, to say the least.

Auckland Council has just gone through extensive consultation—two rounds of consultation—with the public and with the elected members of the council on this. They have to provide a detailed description of what the proceeds of the fuel tax will be spent on—a list of very precise, named capital projects with extensive descriptions beside each one. It cannot be spent on vague promises or operating expenditure that’s not directly tied to the items of capital expenditure. So those obligations—actually far more burdensome and exacting than the ones in Mr van de Molen’s amendment—are already in place.

Members, before I call the next speaker, which will be Lawrence Yule, I just want to inform the committee that the amendment in the name of Denise Lee amending the Education Act 1989 will be ruled out of order and so cannot be debated.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to Minister Twyford for his last explanation. Yes, he’s correct. I do have some knowledge of the Local Government Act and consultation. I also have some knowledge as to how councils work.

I want to make a couple of observations right at the beginning of this contribution. First of all, it is very easy to look at Auckland. Auckland is a unitary authority, where all the councils were put together under an amalgamation. They have one process. But this bill actually covers every other regional council in New Zealand. There are a number of other unitary authorities like Auckland: Tasman, Nelson, Gisborne, and Marlborough, from memory. All the rest are a conglomerate of territorial authorities within a regional council boundary. How local government works in those other areas, which are also subject to this legislation, is very different to Auckland because they don’t always agree.

So the regional council has the pre-eminent role of setting up a regional fuel tax, but I happen to know—the Hon Stuart Nash also will know this—that territorial authorities don’t always agree. Sometimes they actually fight each other. So when you impose a regional fuel tax and you go through consultation, as the Minister has said, under this special consultative process at the beginning of this, you are assuming that for the next 10 years everybody will agree on the priorities and the projects and how it’s going to happen.

To be honest, I think that’s naive for the rest of New Zealand. We actually have local body elections every three years. In many cases, there are new mayors who come in every three years with mandates to do things differently. I give an example: the Kapiti Expressway. Depending on which person is the mayor, they would’ve made a different decision about where that’s going to be and how they support it. So in year one, that project is set up on a 10-year plan of funding, but in year three, a new mayor comes along, populates the regional transport committee, and seeks to undermine the decision that was made three years ago.

Why that’s important, Minister, is that under section 15 of the Local Government Act, there is a thing in there called the triennial agreement. It requires every three years for all the councils in an area to agree by 31 May, post the local government elections, on a whole series of things. I’ll go through them: “(a) protocols for communication and co-ordination amongst the local authorities; and (b) a statement on the process by which the local authorities will comply with section 16 in respect of proposals for new regional council activities;”—that probably won’t apply in this case—“(c) processes and protocols through which all local authorities can participate in identifying, delivering, and funding facilities and services of significance to more than 1 district.” This is clearly that.

So my suggestion—and it’s tabled in an amendment in my name—is that clause 10(2) be amended and an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 be made that adds a new section, section 15(8), which says that “Local authorities that concurrently exist in a single region (such as territorial and regional authorities) must include a section in the triennial agreement on the management, operation and cost sharing of a regional fuel tax scheme under subpart 3 of the Land Management Act 2003.”

I say that because of my significant years in local government, when most people look at the triennial agreement as a piece of paper that is never looked at again, that is compliant with the Local Government Act. Up until recently, that’s all that’s been done. How do we apply with the Local Government Act? We will sign the triennial agreement. There is nothing of substance in it. But I believe this is actually significant—10 years of funding commitment on major projects across a region actually requires agreement in the triennial agreement to force every part of that region to comply.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to be able to contribute. I’m taking this call to move the amendment in my name that is “After clause 11, insert new Clause 12”. Clause 12 is to amend the Road User Charges Act 2012. So this proposed clause amends the Road User Charges Act 2012: “At the end of section 33(3) replace ‘.’ with ‘, and whether there is a Regional Fuel Tax scheme in place in the region where the [road-user charges] vehicle is primarily used.’ ” The purpose of this amendment in my name is to ensure that a road-user charge collector can take into consideration the presence of a regional fuel tax when deciding whether to waive or refund a vehicle’s road-user charges. Our position is very clear: ideally, we don’t want to see this regional fuel tax legislation, overall, going through. But I’m proposing this amendment to help businesses and also to keep the cost of living for people, especially people on superannuation, as low as possible. If Minister Twyford decides not to accept my amendment, I would like to really hear from the Minister why the Minister thinks that this amendment is not a good one to be accepted and the amendment proposed to be put in the legislation.

I was talking to some people in Mount Roskill, and, yes, there were groups of some business people; there were groups of people there who are on superannuation. One business person that distributes their products all around the country raised this concern with me: to compete with products that are coming from overseas—for some reason, some products that come from overseas, even after the shipping charge goes on them, are able to be sold at a cheaper rate than the products that are manufactured locally. So what this business does is, to compete with these products, it delivers products free of delivery charge, and this is just a tactic that the business has adopted to compete with other products.

The concern that this business person had was that with this regional fuel tax legislation going through—in the first step they know that the Auckland Council has already approved that 11.5c per litre is going to be implemented from 1 July, and with this legislation going through it is going to be around 25c a litre. It’s going to be really hard for this business person to be able to absorb the freight charge—the freight charge of the deliveries that he does all around the country. He said that he might reconsider the number of positions that he has in his office. So somehow these businesses will try hard to absorb this additional cost of freight in their business, but there will be some form of impact, and that could be in terms of someone becoming unemployed.

Then, in that conversation, we had a couple in the group that is on superannuation. Their concern is that it’s not just about the fuel charge, because with freight charges going up—as most of the freight is diesel, and that is where the road-user charge becomes relevant—they said the cost of everything else, especially food, will also go up, and it will become really hard for people on superannuation. I’m talking about families and businesses in Mount Roskill, where we know that the families already find it really hard, and this legislation is going to make it harder for them. They said that the cost of food is the biggest worry they have. As a couple they like to go out once a week, and they were saying that they will have to reconsider their once-a-week outing because even the restaurant food will go up, because it is not just about the petrol prices going up, but it’s about everything else that is linked to petrol or diesel. Everything else that is delivered through various freight mechanisms—the costs of those things are also going to go up.

It’s really important that we take into consideration people—those who are on superannuation, businesses that really want to make sure that they’re doing well and are able to employ more people—so that they are not affected. So that’s why I am proposing this amendment in my name that is that a road-user charge collector can take into consideration the presence of a regional fuel tax when deciding whether to waive or refund a vehicle’s road-user charges. This would give some form of relief to businesses, because they will be able to continue their practice of doing deliveries that are free of charge, and also the cost of food and other things—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

I call Chris Penk.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Oh, really?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Your decision was more popular in some parts of these benches than others. It’s possibly even less popular with me than with those colleagues who missed out. I wish to speak to a tabled amendment in my name—an idea that had just come to me so freshly that the ink is still drying on the paper. It is none the less a thoughtful, I think, and worthwhile amendment, and I wish to speak to it in the following terms.

There are five main points I wish to make speaking to a new clause 12 inserting new section 26B into the Local Government Act 2002, which would read as follows: “In the event of a reorganisation of local authorities where a Regional Fuel Tax is established in one of the regions, the tax will become obsolete.” The five reasons that I propose this amendment are as follows. I will speak to each of these in some detail throughout the rest of my contribution, but, briefly, in outline first, they are: one, not subverting the intention of the reorganisation effort; two, not subverting the intention of the regional fuel tax itself; three, to acknowledge that the region in the regional fuel tax is different following the reorganisation to that which existed prior to such reorganisation; four, to ensure the consultation process takes place; and five, to ensure the integrity of the alignment between the projects that had been contemplated at first and the geographical area to which those apply.

Taking the first of those, the desire not to subvert the intention of the reorganisation, it seems to me clear that in the case of local authorities being realigned, or reorganised, as we might say, the intention of such reorganisation would be to create a new set of entities, or a new entity, as the case may be, to apply to a certain region. If the arrangements that were in place in relation to a different region were then carried over, then it could fairly be said, I think, that the object of the reorganisation—the desire to provide somewhat of a clean slate and a fresh start—could be said to be defeated.

Secondly, in relation to the desire to avert the subverting of the intention of the regional fuel tax, it would have to be acknowledged, I think, by all in this committee that the purpose of a regional fuel tax is to apply to a specific region that exists at the time that the fuel tax was brought into force. So if a different region were to exist, then surely the arrangements for the tax that would apply to the region should be different as well.

That point really leads to my third point, which goes to the heart of what a regional fuel tax is, which, of course, as it says on the tin, is very much a tax on fuel in a region or regions. So, again, without wishing to belabour the point—or perhaps specifically because I do wish to belabour the point—with a different region in place following the reorganisation of local authorities, a different regional fuel tax regime, or the absence of such a regime, should apply.

Fourth, to ensure that consultation takes place is an important aspect of my amendment. If consultation takes place with one set of ratepayers and residents of a geographical area, and then a different geographical area is created as a result of the reorganisation and a different set of residents and ratepayers thereby is created, then the consultation that had taken place among the first set of residents might produce a different outcome, or might have produced a different outcome, from that which will be the result of consulting with the second set of residents and ratepayers—namely that created post-reorganisation.

My fifth and final point, Mr Chair, as highlighted, and no doubt, therefore, keenly anticipated by you and, indeed, all this committee—perhaps all the country, if I may be so bold—is to maintain the integrity of the alignment of the projects that were contemplated in relation to the first iteration of the regional fuel tax—namely that in the regional authority that existed prior to the reorganisation and the geographical area to which those apply.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Kia ora, e Te Whare. Thank you for the call. Just before I resume where I was interrupted last night on Part 2 of this bill, can I just make the point to some of the inexperienced new members opposite that we have only had around about an hour of debate so far on Part 2 of the bill, and, frankly, I’m outraged that they’re already trying to shut down the debate when members on this side of the Chamber have tabled a large number of amendments, many of which have not yet even received a mention, let alone an opportunity for debate. So I would anticipate that we would still be debating this at least until early next week, and they should, instead of trying to shut down debate on an issue of huge importance to New Zealanders right around the country, actually get engaged in that debate and justify to their constituents—particularly if they’re outside the Auckland area—as to why Part 2 of this bill should suddenly be applying to all of them.

As I mentioned, I was in mid-flight on Part 2 of this bill when my last call was interrupted. I’d just like to ask, while the Minister is in the chair, if an answer was provided, because I raised what I thought was quite a serious point under the amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985—this is clause 7 in Part 2—as to whether, in fact, there was a drafting error. I’m just wondering if the Minister could perhaps indicate by a nod—because I wasn’t in the Chamber later—whether he responded to that point.

He hasn’t responded to that point, so I want to repeat my query as to whether, in fact, the suggestion that in new section 5(6BB), “(a) any amount of regional fuel tax … that is paid is treated as being consideration for a supply of services in the course or furtherance of a taxable activity carried on”—and that’s the key word here—“by the New Zealand Transport Agency, as an agent for and on behalf of the local authority”, etc., etc. My query was whether the word “on” is a drafting error, because “carrying on” normally implies playing up or acting the goat; it certainly doesn’t suggest a sensible piece of legislation, and I’m wondering whether the word should have been “out” not “on”. I’m sorry that that point hasn’t been clarified. I very much hope that it will be, because I don’t see how the House could be expected, intentionally, to consider, let alone to adopt, something that contains a drafting error.

Let me return to the point that I was beginning to discuss during my last call, and that is relating to the changes to the Local Government Act in clause 10 of Part 2. I was making the point that the new section 34B of that Act specifies something that I think is an appalling deceit, because at no point prior to the initial discussions and advocacy from some parts of Auckland for this tax was it ever suggested that it would apply outside the Auckland region, yet when one reads section 34B, “Additional Information: RFT Schemes”, subsection (1) says, “The regional council of an RFT region, in its annual report, must report”—an RFT region. In other words, “Here we’ve suddenly found we’ve gone well beyond Auckland; this could apply to anybody.” I made the point last night: watch out, New Zealand, because this is coming to a town near you.

I am asking how such a deceit, which was not consulted upon, certainly in my area, could suddenly now be adopted into legislation, and even—and I dispute this—if it is seen as some sort of solution to Auckland’s problems, how it can possibly be one—and I’d like to pick up on the point that my good friend Mr Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, was making last night: how can it possibly be a solution for the people of D’urville Island or of the Awatere Valley, who already have to travel huge distances to, let’s say, just get to the shops? To apply such a capricious tax on them in such a sneaky fashion is totally unjustified, and yet this is now being written into the Local Government Act without any mandate whatsoever, not only from the people of D’urville Island but anywhere else around the country.

I ask you not just to take my word for it, but to take the word of a former Labour MP, the Road Transport Forum Chief Executive, Ken Shirley, who put out a press statement today describing this as a really bad idea of an Auckland regional fuel tax which has become contagious and is now infecting various other parts of the country. “From 2021”, said Mr Shirley, “every regional and unitary council in the country can apply to the Government for the right to impose a 10c a litre (plus GST) regional fuel tax on their communities.” So I would like to ask the Minister to respond to Mr Shirley’s—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a great pleasure to speak for the first time on Part 2 of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. It was with great disappointment last night, I have to report, that I had two tabled amendments that I did not get a chance or an opportunity to speak on. I have a tabled amendment—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’re on Part 2.

I know that, Mr Chair, but I am pointing out that last night I did not get the opportunity to speak on those amendments, and I hope that this evening I will get the opportunity to speak on my other tabled amendments apart from the one I’m just about to address.

It is with great disappointment that I look on the other side of the Chamber and see them trying to shut this debate down when we have not even discussed our tabled amendments. This is my first call, and we’re entitled to four calls, I believe, on a part, and I think that’s what we should be able to do.

💬 Hon Member: As a minimum, surely.

As a minimum, yes. I’m very delighted that I now have this opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s one minute gone without mentioning anything.

OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Please do.

All right, Mr Chair. Now, I am proposing, in clause 10, to add in a new paragraph to new section 34B, inserting section 34B(1)(d): “the cost benefit analysis that the Council has undertaken in relation to where the revenue was spent.” That should be read, of course, after paragraph (b), which is: “how [the] revenue was applied by the council, including to which projects and … what purposes (for example, capital [expenditure], debt repayment, operational [expenditure]);” etc. So this is very important, and I think it fits well with the tabled amendment in the name of Tim van de Molen, which I think was a new subsection (3) of that very clause.

I think if you have tax, then you have a responsibility to spend it correctly, and I think you have an obligation to your ratepayers to ensure that you report that correctly. Tax is very much like a drug: it’s highly addictive, and councils and like with a drug, Governments become so dependent on that tax that it has quite significant impacts on them. In the sense of a drug, it has an impact on the body and changes in the body, and if we use that as an analogy for a Government or for a council, then what we see is it forming fat—fat in terms of lazy spending and staff doing jobs that are not required.

I think a good example, when we have schemes that might be paid for under a regional fuel tax—let’s, for example, say a sewerage scheme. We have a lot of expenditure on a sewerage scheme, like with the Kaipara District Council, that got itself in a lot of trouble. Had it had really close management and reporting regimes back to its ratepayers, I don’t think it would have got in the trouble it did at that time.

If I look in my own council, the Marlborough District Council in the town of Blenheim, they would likely line up, I think, for a regional fuel tax. The town is growing significantly. The building inspectors tell me there’s a greater boom than there was in 2008, so that’s an amazing amount of building going on, but there’s a significant sewerage infrastructure upgrade that’s required, and a regional fuel tax might well be the vehicle they use to fund that scheme or that expansion. But how do the ratepayers know they are getting value for money? How do they know that that scheme is actually being delivered in a form that will be good for everyone at a reasonable cost? What would be required, certainly in a business sector, would be strict reporting and cost-benefit analysis on that particular scheme to ensure that people are getting what they pay for and no more. We don’t need more than we set out to pay for, and we want to ensure that the efficiencies run right through the system, because I can assure you that if money is sitting there, they will spend it, and they will spend it even if it isn’t necessary or good quality spending.

So I think clause 10 has some really good possibilities in it, but it does need rounding out with Mr van de Molen’s amendment and suggested addition, and with my amendment inserting new section 34B(1)(d) to add “the cost benefit analysis that the Council has undertaken in relation to where the revenue was spent.” So, with that, Mr Chair, I thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise this point of order because earlier in the night, you ruled out an amendment in Denise Lee’s name. It inserts a new clause 12. I ask that you hear this point of order because there will be other amendments that seek to insert new clause 12 amendments as well. My understanding, in discussions with staff in the building, is that one of the reasons why this amendment was ruled out is because it incorporates an amendment to another piece of legislation—in this case, the Education Act—and, just for ease of understanding, in this case, the amendment in Denise Lee’s name would have made some changes to section 139D which would have provided a requirement for the ministry to take an action in response to the regional fuel tax legislation. In this case, it’s around school transport.

There are other amendments that are going to be coming along which will make amendments to other Acts as well that we’re wanting to put forward. I don’t believe it would be right, on a wholesale basis—and I anticipate this may be a consideration you’re giving. I don’t believe it would be accurate to, on a wholesale basis, say any amendments that seek to insert a new clause 12 that incorporate another piece of legislation that is not already in the bill—I don’t believe that would be the right decision, because I submit to you that Part 2 already does include amendments to other pieces of legislation that are not required to make the regional fuel tax scheme workable.

For example, Part 2 includes some amendments to the Local Government Act around reporting. If the argument was that it must be an amendment in Part 2 that is required to make Part 1 work—if that was the argument—then I think that could be a basis for ruling out amendments. But, in fact, we already have in Part 2 a particular proposed change to a piece of legislation that is not required to implement the regional fuel tax scheme, because reporting is not required for implementing the scheme.

So I submit to you that it is in order for members of Parliament to put forward amendments which seek to amend other pieces of legislation if it can be related to the regional fuel tax scheme, as the proposed amendments in the Minister’s name already seek to do. Because we have the ability to consider issues related to a regional fuel tax scheme, such as the Local Government Act amendments, we should have the ability to put forward other amendments and other Supplementary Order Papers which seek to amend other Acts of Parliament, because those are legitimate debating points about consequential issues that may arise that can be linked back to the regional fuel tax scheme. I don’t believe Part 2 as it’s currently drafted in the bill solely contains issues that must be addressed to make a regional fuel tax scheme workable.

There are other issues that are superfluous but are related to the regional fuel tax scheme. We should also have the ability to put forward amendments that, while superfluous to making a regional fuel tax scheme workable, are still worthwhile of debate, and I submit to you that when you give consideration to making rulings on future amendments that we put forward or may have already put forward, you give consideration to the fact that the bill already contains matters very, very similar to what Denise Lee proposed and was ruled out and what other members may be proposing as well.

The member opposite is, effectively, trying to try to draw out a debate on a very tightly—

No, no—e noho. E noho. No, I don’t need any of that kind help, thank you. I want to thank the member for bringing this issue to my attention, the way that he sees it. The reason why I ruled that particular amendment out was based on the fact that I believe that it should’ve been part of Part 1, not of Part 2, and as a rebate, it should not be part of Part 2. However, I’m going to take some further advice and come back to the committee. It may be a situation where I just allow the committee to be the master of its own destiny and make that decision for itself through a vote, but I’ll take further advice on that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Thank you for giving consideration to the issue. May I make one further submission that I hope may be helpful. Whilst the proposal from Denise Lee could, one could argue, go into Part 1, we in fact are restricted—were restricted—by Part 1, given that Part 1 is amendments to the Land Transport Management Act. With the way in which this bill has been drafted, it, effectively, has two parts: Part 1 is all of the changes to the Land Transport Management Act, and Part 2 is all of the changes to any other Acts. Given that Denise Lee’s proposed amendment would seek to amend the Education Act, it would not, in fact, have been possible to put forward Denise Lee’s amendment in Part 1, because Part 1 is related to the Land Transport Management Act.

If members of Parliament are of a view that we should consider as a committee amendments to other pieces of legislation which are related to a regional fuel tax scheme, the only possible avenue for them to do that, if it is contained in a different piece of legislation to the Land Transport Management Act, is to propose it in Part 2, which she’s done. I ask you to consider that point also when you consider your future ruling.

Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Chair, I refer you to 62/2 of the speaking orders, and the—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders?

Speakers’ rulings—thank you very much. Speakers’ rulings are relatively clear that the form of drafting of a bill is to be taken into consideration in terms of length of debate. I refer to the remarks of our colleague over the other side of the House, Tim Macindoe, that mentioned that we’ve been going—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

This is a separate point of order, sir.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It doesn’t sound like it, so can you get to—

It is a separate point of order, sir.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You need to come to it now, though.

Come to—sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You need to come to exactly what your point of order is.

We’ve been debating this Part 2 for in excess of two hours. We’ve seen an extensive range of amendments that’ve been tabled. There’s nothing in the Standing Orders that require that every single one of these amendments are considered at any length. This Part 2 is a very narrow—

I’m on my feet—[Interruption] I am on my feet; you sit down. Thank you. Whether the member likes it or not, the Chair is the sole decision maker about when to accept the closure motion—OK? For accuracy, it has not been going for two hours. There are—[Interruption] I’m on my feet. Don’t interrupt—seriously, don’t do that. As I said, that is a matter for the Chair to decide. There are other ways of addressing that; that is not one of them. I’ll take the next call.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, this is the first opportunity I’ve had to participate in this debate, either in the first part or now in the second part. I listened carefully to a contribution made earlier this evening by my very good friend the Hon Tim Macindoe, who gave some very good advice to some of the new junior members of the Government backbench. They really do need to have a much better understanding of the basic principles of democracy that exist in this House. They have come to Parliament to participate in democracy and in debate, and what do we find? They want to close that debate down—they want to close that debate down at the very first opportunity.

Well, I’ve got very good news for them—very good news for them, indeed—this is a bill that is going to be fought vigorously by this side of the House, and we’ve got an awful lot of debating yet to do and a lot of very good contributions to make. This legislation is fundamentally flawed and it’s going to need a lot of work to get it right—indeed, if it can even be properly considered to be right in any way, shape, or form.

Now, we have got on the Table tonight a large range of amendments from Opposition members, who have been working diligently and hard on working out ways to try and find a sensible outcome for this piece of legislation, and it’s part of the parliamentary process that here, in the committee stage, that’s exactly what we do. Now, I know that Government members aren’t keen on that kind of democratic proactivity, but they’re going to have to get a little bit used to it because in a Parliament like this, actually, that’s what MPs do: they come to Parliament, they come to debate the issues, they come to debate the policies, and they come to debate the fine detail of legislation like this.

So I represent a region in the Coromandel that is going to be greatly impacted by a potential regional fuel tax, and I was horrified today to read in the media that none other than my local council—my local council—is considering lining up and asking for a regional fuel tax, and it got me thinking about the process that a local district council would be involved, as part of a subset of a regional council, in the imposing of an unfair, ubiquitous tax of this sort on the hard-working and dedicated people of the Thames-Coromandel District Council.

So I have got an amendment in my name that is seeking to provide an opportunity that exists under the Local Electoral Act of 2001 for territorial authorities to have a referendum on issues such as this. We know, from other pieces of legislation and other events that have occurred recently around New Zealand, that when a certain number of citizens get together and sign a petition, they can invoke and cause to be had a referendum on matters such as this. Particularly when it comes to matters of taxation, representation is very important—that old adage about no taxation without representation comes to mind.

So my amendment would seek to insert a new clause after clause 11 in Part 2 and it would be clause 12. It would be clause 12 that would say, “Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001”. Subclause (1) would say, “This section amends the Local Electoral Act 2001”, and then subclause (2), “After section 9(7) [of the Local Electoral Act 2001] insert a new clause 7(a)”, which would read as follows: “The above section (7) does not apply if the subject of the referendum is a proposed or existing Regional Fuel Tax scheme. All referendum on the subject of a Regional Fuel Tax scheme must be binding.”—must be binding.

The reason for that is to ensure that any referendum that is triggered as a result of the Local Electoral Act 2001 would then have to be voted on by the good citizens of a particular district, or a region, and that then, when that referendum occurred, the result would be binding. And the news for the Government would be very, very sad indeed, because I don’t think that there’s a region or a district in the country that would vote in a referendum of that sort for the kind of terrible taxation—the impost of a fuel tax of the sort that is being proposed here—in a manner that would occur in a referendum where there was a public debate, where there was a debate held among the citizenry of a district, and where arguments for and against were put to the people of the region who were going to be paying this tax. I don’t think that there is a district or a region in the country that would voluntarily vote for a regional fuel tax of this sort.

So I commend careful consideration by this committee of the whole House to my proposed amendment, and I commend the prospect to Government members—particularly the new junior ones—of democracy.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak here on this bill. I’d like to acknowledge the assistance of my colleague Harete Hipango from Whanganui, with her legal background, for the drafting of this amendment.

I see in Part 2, clause 11, “Amendment to Search and Surveillance Act 2012”, an enforcement officer must obtain and execute a search warrant to search for evidence of offences against section 65ZC of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Now, section 65ZC says, “A person commits an offence if that person knowingly or recklessly refuses or fails to file a monthly return under section 65Q”. Section 65Q says, “A regional fuel taxpayer by whom a regional fuel tax is payable under a regional fuel tax scheme in respect of any supplies or transfers of fuel in a month must file with the Agency a monthly return. The return must—(a) be within 20 days of the next month; and (b) be filed in the form and manner reasonably required by the Agency; and (c) contain any information and be accompanied by other documents reasonably required”. If they fail to comply under section 65ZC(2), they are liable, on conviction, to a $15,000 fine, or $75,000 for an organisation. This is bureaucracy gone mad, and it’s what this Government seems to love imposing on our hard-working New Zealanders.

Now, I would like to submit this amendment. This section, under clause 11(2), amends the Search and Surveillance Act 2002, and section 65ZB inserts, after “Land Transport Management Act 2003”, the following words: “an enforcement officer may obtain and execute a warrant to search for evidence of offences against section 65ZC of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 only if there shows a repeated and deliberate pattern of avoidance over 12 months”. The reason I put that amendment in is because as the law stands now and as it’s drafted, a person, after one month of failing to put a return, can be the subject of the execution of a search warrant to search for evidence of offences under the Act. It’s my opinion that that’s Draconian and, in my view, it needs to show a pattern of behaviour. So I submit that.

I also believe that this regional fuel tax brings a layer of bureaucracy to businesses. Anyone that’s run a business knows that this sort of legislation just makes it harder and harder to run a business. I see here under Part 2, clause 10, “Amendments to Local Government Act 2002”, in subclause (5), new section 34B says, “The regional council of an RFT region, in its annual report, must report on—(a) the revenue from an RFT scheme paid to the council … that revenue [must be] applied by the council, including to which projects and for what purposes (for example, capital expenditures, debt repayment, operational expenditure); and (c) progress with respect to the programme of capital projects supported by the RFT scheme.” I submit that this is yet another layer of bureaucracy added to the others that business owners and others under this coalition have to endure.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to speak to the tabled amendment in my name—there’s a couple there. The one I’m speaking to in this call—and I am hopeful of taking additional calls to speak to other tabled amendments, but the amendment in my name I’m speaking to in this case is a new clause 12 which would make an amendment to the Social Security Act 1964. The reason I have put forward this amendment is because we know through the submissions at the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we know through commentary out there in the media by those well-versed in this topic that regional fuel taxes are regressive taxes. They also have an impact on the cost of living for people out there who have to pay them.

The reason why I’ve put this forward, particularly, is because of that impact on people when it comes to those who are living in greater poverty than the average person. Individuals who receive assistance from the State typically are ones that live furthest away from the CBD of a city. They typically are the ones that may drive the least fuel-efficient vehicles, and they’re the ones that would be hit hardest by a regional fuel tax.

The recommendation that I put forward to the committee contained in this amendment would seek to insert a new section into the Social Security Act 1964. This section reads, “Any person who receives a payment under the provisions of this Act”—so anyone who receives a benefit, essentially, under the Social Security Act—“and primarily resides in a region that has an established regional fuel tax scheme”—in this case it would be Auckland initially, but later on there will be other councils that have already put their hands up, so it’ll be wider than just Auckland. But anyone who primarily resides in that region that has an established regional fuel tax scheme under the provisions of Subpart 3 of the Land Transport Management Act—the ones that have already gone through—would be “eligible for an additional annual payment equal to the average cost … a person is projected to pay under a regional fuel tax in their region.”

I submit this to the committee because I think it’s important that we recognise, accurately and appropriately, the impact on those people who can least afford to pay a regional fuel tax. Now, it’s imperfect. We can’t always identify perfectly the people that would be hit hardest by a regional fuel tax or the people who would find it the hardest to pay a regional fuel tax because of their personal circumstances, but we do have a relatively crude measure available to us, and that’s those that receive a benefit or receive a payment under the provisions of the Social Security Act.

They are broad, I know, and there are many New Zealanders—tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders—that do receive a payment under the provisions of the Social Security Act. But I think the committee should carefully consider this amendment because it is very clear and very well understood—and, I think, even admitted by the Minister and his officials—that the people who would find it hardest to pay a regional fuel tax are those that are living at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. In fact, the Minister, when he’s answered questions in the House around cost of living issues, has, in fact, identified the fact that the Government has made changes to the Social Security Act and also made changes to benefit levels which would compensate those who would struggle paying a regional fuel tax. They point to the Families Package that they have.

I submit to you that this particular amendment, in fact, adds on to that, and it says even further that we as a committee wish the Parliament, when it considers the third reading, to include in this bill particular provisions that would make further amendments to the Social Security Act. If the people who are receiving a benefit payment under the Social Security Act are receiving such a payment, they’re the ones that are in need of greater assistance. The bill, in its entirety, would allow greater costs to be imposed on people.

There is strong evidence that was presented at the select committee that those that are living in high-deprivation areas, probably in areas that have a high number of people receiving a payment under the Social Security Act, are the people that—and there’s strong evidence that was put forward by Sam Warburton. I don’t think it was modelled very much, if at all, by the ministry, but there were other submitters that put forward particular arguments that they would be hit the hardest.

But there were also arguments put forward by a particular submitter, and I do talk about Sam Warburton’s submission—[Bell rung] Thank you for the additional call; sorry, everyone else. I do talk particularly to the submission of Sam Warburton because he’s a transport economist. He previously worked for the Ministry of Transport, and he has put a lot of emphasis in his personal and professional life into modelling how taxation in the transport sector impacts on people. He was very clear in his submission that regional fuel taxes—and, indeed, fuel taxes in general—are regressive and that those regressive taxes hurt people living in high deprivation the most. It’s only reasonable that when we’re considering a bill around implementing a regional fuel tax, we make available to us the ability in Part 2 to consider additional policy changes and additional measures by making further changes to other pieces of legislation.

The Minister himself has stood in this House in question time and said, “There are means to compensate people for a regional fuel tax.” I argue that the regional fuel tax is so damaging to people and so bad for people living under a proposed regional fuel tax scheme that we should do more. I, in fact, don’t think it should be in place at all. In fact, I think there are other ways in which transport infrastructure can be funded—we have canvassed those—but if this is going to go ahead, and if there are going to be changes made to legislation which allow regional fuel tax schemes to be implemented, then we should be doing everything we can to highlight the fact that this tax will hurt people that are at the lowest end and that need assistance more from the State.

The Social Security Act is there for that very purpose. The Social Security Act is there because it says in a piece of legislation there are people that are living in particular situations where they need assistance from the State. The Social Security Act is there because it says there are people who, by virtue of the circumstance they are in or by virtue of decisions they may have made in their life, have ended up in a position where they need assistance. Well, it’s not just individuals in their own personal circumstance that are now being put into a position where additional costs are being put on to them; it’s actually the Parliament that’s about to legislate to allow further costs to be put in place. And if we’re going to do that, if we’re going to allow—and this side disagrees with it, but if the Parliament’s going to allow greater taxation powers, it has to be coupled with an acknowledgment that there’s a need to make other measures available to people to compensate them for these issues.

We’ve had a lot of debate in the Parliament through question time about the cost that would be imposed on people, and the Government comes up with averages and they make it sound like it’s a small amount of money because it’s the cost of a cup of coffee. I’d say to the committee that it’s probably unlikely that people receiving a payment under the Social Security Act are the Ponsonby dwellers that are sipping lattes every single day, several times a day, but they’re the people that actually struggle the most, and they’re the people that probably can’t afford a cup of coffee. But we do know through the evidence that was put forward in the select committee that the people that are living furthest away from the CBD, the people that have the least fuel-efficient cars, the people that can’t afford to buy electric vehicles, and the people that can’t afford alternatives means of travel because they have to travel long distances to get to work, are not going to be paying the cost of a cup of coffee. They’re not going to be paying a small amount of money. They’re probably going to be paying hundreds of dollars a year, and their families—if they have two fuel-inefficient cars travelling long distances—will be paying several hundred dollars a year.

Our officials, our staff, have calculated that’s probably around about $700 a year. I know the Minister disagrees with that, but at least in the way in which this is worded, it would allow for an average cost to persons to be calculated. Now, it would be accurate—it would be real-world information. It wouldn’t be anything that the Government’s spin-doctored or we’ve spin-doctored; it would be real information that the ministry would have to come up with to make a calculation under a proposed amendment to the Social Security Act to compensate these people.

We must acknowledge that this bill puts in place additional costs on people. We must acknowledge that this is a regressive tax. We must acknowledge that we’re hurting the cost of living for many New Zealanders out there. We must acknowledge that there should be changes made to legislation to allow it to happen.

I see the Minister is signalling he’d like to take a call. We’re looking forward to him taking a call saying why he doesn’t agree with this—I assume he doesn’t agree with this; I hope he actually agrees with this—but it’s important that we address cost of living issues. It’s important the Minister answers these important questions. We’re looking forward to that.

There have been some very curious contributions from the Opposition benches, but, in the spirit of this committee stage, let me respond to one or two of them. Parmjeet Parmar would like taxation to be a voluntary thing, an optional thing. While I embrace the importance of the spirit of voluntarism in our society, frankly, I’m surprised that the National Party wants to make the payment of taxes an optional thing—but there we go.

Stuart Smith proposes that a cost-benefit analysis be required for every regional council, reporting on the expenditure of the funds raised by a regional fuel tax. I say to Mr Smith that every significant piece of transport expenditure is subjected to a cost-benefit analysis of some kind. In fact, in line with our Government policy statement, our Government is getting under way with a complete revamp of the entire system of measuring the economic value of transport projects.

Scott Simpson had a very unusual proposal: basically, requiring councils to have a referendum before a regional fuel tax could be put in place. This is a very odd suggestion, because councils can raise their budgets and raise rates to support those budgets any year that they like. They don’t have to have a referendum to do that, but they have to go through the requirements of the Local Government Act, as Lawrence Yule well knows—the onerous consultation requirements of the Local Government Act—and they have to explain to their citizens, they have to put a proposal in front of them, they have to, basically, invite public submissions, and then they have to report back to their ratepayers and tell them exactly what they’re going to do. But nowhere in the whole system of local government are councils required to hold a referendum to get the agreement from their citizens for the raising of additional revenue, so this would be a very, very unusual inconsistency in the system of local government.

Matt King proposes an amendment to the Search and Surveillance Act, because Mr King apparently believes that it’s OK to defraud a system of taxation for a month, but you have to have been defrauding the system for 12 months before you can be subject to the enforcement provisions in this bill. I thought that after nine years in this Parliament, I knew the National Party; clearly, I don’t.

Finally, let me respond to Jami-Lee Ross’ contribution in this debate. He wants to amend the Social Security Act to allow a reimbursement of any expenditure on a regional fuel tax—an equivalent amount to be refunded through the social security system. I say to Mr Ross, where was this concern for low-income families facing regressive taxes? Where was this heartfelt concern when the former National Government raised the goods and services tax, having promised—

💬 Matt King: Yeah, but it was tax-neutral—it was tax-neutral.

Well, they say it was tax-neutral, but actually it took money out of the pockets of working New Zealanders and gave it to people at the top end. It was not tax-neutral for working New Zealanders. In fact, it was very tax-negative for the big end of town that the National Party has the habit of looking after.

So I also say to Jami-Lee Ross, if he’s so concerned about regressive taxes, where was this concern when the former National Government raised the petrol excise duty and road-user charges by 17c plus GST—17c plus GST—six times in nine years? Now, the last time I checked, the petrol excise was a regressive tax, but I don’t recall hearing a single speech in this House—[Time expired]

Goodness me! Thank you, Mr Chair—something of a surprise! I just about had a heart attack getting up, so it was lucky you did call me. It’s a great pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. I have, I suppose, the privilege of actually proposing an amendment as well, and that amendment would alter clause 10(5), inserting a new subclause 6). In fact, after subclause (5), you’d insert a new subclause (6), which would add a new subsection, and that subsection would say, “Any proposal for a regional fuel tax scheme under the provisions of subpart 3 of the Land Transport Management Act must incorporate, to the best ability possible, the contents of the infrastructure strategy.” So that is a very constructive piece of alteration to the legislation and it would add to what I think the legislation should have contained in the first place, which was a direct reference the regional land transport plans in each regional council area, which would’ve actually been a very simple way of ensuring that the fuel tax adhered to the plans that those regions had.

This is a crock, this piece of legislation. It’s almost like a death by a thousand cuts. It’s like third time lucky, in effect, because this is the third time in my young memory that we’ve had a regional fuel tax introduced to Parliament. Of course, for that to apply, it really needs to apply to the amendment that I introduced to the committee a moment ago, and, if it doesn’t, then it makes it very difficult for regional councils to implement this type of legislation. It is, in my view, not at all practical, and just recently we’ve seen the Rangitīkei District Council putting their hands up wishing to charge a regional fuel tax. Of course, Rangitīkei District Council gets all their money from Wellington people going skiing on a Friday night and coming home on a Sunday night, because that’s where the regional fuel tax would come from as they travelled through the district to the mountain. Of course, given Rangitīkei River runs right next to the boundary, they would fill up in Sanson on their way up and Sanson on the way back and avoid paying the regional fuel tax, which would be somewhat ironic, Mr Chair—of course, in your instance, that contains your very own home.

Earlier in the night, my colleagues were talking about roads of national significance and the issues that the former Labour Minister Ken Shirley raised, and it occurred to me that that great Labour Minister of transport Harry Duynhoven would have a fair bit to say about this piece of legislation as well, especially given he comes from that great city in the west where they will no longer have fuel to fill up with, anyway, and that will be quite an interesting challenge for them.

So I think that the planning around how we get to the point of a community understanding what the regional fuel tax is going to provide for that district or for that region is quite challenging. I think it’s important that it is attached to the planning that’s gone on in those regions where it’s applicable, and, as I said earlier, that’s the Rangitīkei District Council wanting to impose a regional fuel tax. They’re part of a seven-district regional council, so it would be really interesting for a regional council to pull together a tax that deals with one small piece of that area, so I think that’s quite challenging in itself.

So, Mr Chair—or Madam Chair; it’s changed—I think that this whole piece of legislation is going to be extremely difficult to administer equitably. We’ve seen very clearly in the past that it doesn’t work, and I don’t know why we would try to insert or, I guess, come with a “third time lucky” proposition to reinsert a regional fuel tax again. There was reference made by the Minister only a minute ago to the way the last Government dealt with fuel tax, and, of course, it is quite an important part of how we fund our road transport system. I think it’s logical that it should be rationally applied across the country, and then allocated on a regional basis where the Government thinks it’s necessary. It would have been a much better way of doing it than this. This is hugely untidy, and whilst I must stick to Part 2, I’d very much like to have got on to where the farmers are going to get to with their challenges with the diesel tax as it comes on in a very different form than it’s ever come before, and it’s going to mean a huge administrative cost.

I am pleased to take a call on this Part 2, but in particular I wanted to speak to one of the amendments on the Table that hasn’t previously had attention this evening, and that is a very good amendment in the name of my colleague Hamish Walker, the MP for Queenstown, who has made a very sensible suggestion that I think the Minister should pay serious consideration to, which is adding to the provisions currently in Part 2, which, obviously, are amendments to various pieces of legislation. As we know, they go through the transport legislation, the Local Government Act, and the Search and Surveillance Act—which I want to come back to. But also, in this amendment we are suggesting an amendment after the existing clause 11 to add a new clause 12, which would suggest an amendment which isn’t currently in the legislation, amending the Road User Charges Act.

It does seem to me, in reading this legislation, that there has been an omission to consider the interplay between this piece of legislation and the Road User Charges Act. If you look at that road-user charges (RUC) legislation, then it’s very clear that in section 53(2) of that Act you have quite a number of provisions that an assessor for road-user charges should take into account in considering whether to make an assessment for the collection of road-user charges. I won’t run through them all, but, as the Clerk can imagine, there are quite a number of provisions in that legislation and it’s quite clear that a road-user charges assessor should turn their minds to a full range of considerations in deciding whether it’s appropriate to make an assessment for road-user charges.

What this legislation fails to do, though, is to consider the interplay between that framework and this framework, and I think Hamish Walker is absolutely right when he suggested it’s quite appropriate to add into this framework a subsequent amendment to section 53 of the Road User Charges Act, which would be a new section 53(2)(g) suggesting that where there is a regional fuel tax scheme in place in the region where the RUC vehicle is primarily used, that should be another factor which is considered by the RUC assessor. It is appropriate that when we’re going to be adding in yet another cost on motorists in the system, we have to think about the interplay between that one and existing frameworks. In this case, in the particular amendment that I wanted to address, because it hasn’t been discussed in this committee stage—and I’m aware, actually, that there are a number of amendments, important amendments, still to be discussed in this committee stage.

This is an important one. Look, it may not be the core of the National Party’s opposition to this bill, which is absolutely around the imposition of an unwarranted, unheralded, unannounced, new tax on the regions of New Zealand that simply won’t address the issues that the Government claims it will—that is obviously at the core of our opposition and a number of us spoke very strongly against that in Part 1—but in this Part 2, we have to turn our minds to the operation of this framework if, in fact, it does become law. It seems quite clear to me that, reading through the existing provisions in Part 2 and the various consequential amendments, there has been an omission to think about the interplay with the road-user charges framework, and my colleague Hamish Walker has come up with a very good suggestion.

It shouldn’t actually fall on members of this House to fix a Minister’s legislation, but, frankly, I expect very little else from this particular Minister. He’s not known as a Minister of competence in delivering everything he does, and it seems to me that in this bill we see yet another example where the operationalising of the words is failing, and it falls now to members of the National Party to find the omissions—the lacunas—in this legislation, and here is a lacuna relating to the Road User Charges Act where there is no direction so far in the legislation as to how it fits in with this regional fuel tax scheme. This is a very simple amendment that I would like to see the Government take up, very clearly outlining that the road-user charges assessor can make that change.

But there is another matter that I did want to discuss on Part 2, which is the amendment that is in the legislation to the Search and Surveillance Act. Now how many of our constituents, hearing that they’d face a 25 percent extra charge on their petrol per litre—11.5c of which comes from this regional fuel tax—know that it comes with an amendment to the Search and Surveillance Act allowing assessors to search their vehicles if there’s any suggestion of non-compliance with the Act? But in this legislation, we see an amendment to the Search and Surveillance Act. This is how serious this Government is about taking more tax off you—they’re adding an amendment to the Search and Surveillance Act which allows an enforcement officer to obtain and execute a search warrant for evidence.

So you may think it’s just a matter of pulling up to the pump and the pain of paying a little bit more at the pump, but, no, it goes beyond that. You actually now have—thanks to Minister Phil Twyford and the Labour Government—a fuel tax that allows enforcement officers to stop you, to execute a search warrant, and to search your vehicle for evidence of offences under the Land Transport Act. Now I don’t remember seeing any of that in the press release the Minister put out, and I would like to hear from this Minister exactly why it is and in what circumstances there could possibly be a need for an enforcement officer to search a vehicle for evidence of non-compliance with payment of the regional fuel tax. I think that is a very extensive power that deserves more time and debate in this House.

As member who’s been in this House now for nearly 10 years, I have heard numerous debates where Labour and the Greens, particularly, railed against the Search and Surveillance Act and the overreach of powers of the State. Well, I look forward to Green members taking a call in defence of why a regional fuel tax bill needs powers under the Search and Surveillance Act for searching vehicles, for executing search warrants, and for exposing drivers to that unreasonable extension of powers of the State. The Minister has made no explanation as to why that’s warranted. It is an important matter. It does deserve the time of the committee. The Minister is, not surprisingly, silent on it. Well, National Party members on this side find the gaps in his legislation, find the unworkable holes, and seek to fill them, even in a piece of legislation we don’t support, because we do want legislation of this House to be workable.

It does show the importance of good quality, careful scrutiny of these consequential amendments to pieces of legislation, because buried in what could be seen as the detritus of a bill—buried in what could be seen as the unimportant little consequential amendments—are some very significant powers, and I’ve heard nothing from the Government in this debate as to why there is no linkage into the road-user charges framework. I’ve heard nothing from the Government as to how the two would fit together—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I just want to caution the member regarding repetition. Those arguments were made in your first call. Thank you.

Thank you. That’s right. Just to finish that point, I’ve heard nothing from the Government around why that search and surveillance power needs to be in here.

So I think there are a number of matters that have been raised so far in this Part 2 debate. I’m aware that there are a number of similar matters to be raised. I would invite the Minister to explain to us why those two deficiencies exist, and I’m very much looking forward to hearing his answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a call in this debate on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill and I want to cover a number of matters in this first call that I intend to take in this Part 2 debate.

I want to start with some comments that the Minister raised in his contribution which really bring in some new elements to this debate. Given that the Minister has raised a number of issues around equity, I want to use that to extend one of the arguments on this side of the House in terms of a number of the amendments. One of them I’ll speak to very specifically, but there are other amendments. I think there are 14 or 15 amendments that haven’t been addressed at all yet, so I will come to a contribution on that in another call. But I wanted to just come back to the Minister’s comments about equity, because as my colleagues have quite rightly said before this—and, in particular, Jami-Lee Ross in his contribution—we’ve actually got two significant issues of inequity.

I raise this because the Minister raised it in his contribution, and in his contribution he specifically asked why it was that when the previous Government increased the goods and services tax, we did not make some of the changes to, for example, the Social Security Act. What the Minister failed to raise in his contribution, which is why I want to bring it to the attention of the committee—because when the Minister spoke in his contribution in the committee of the whole House, he talked about issues that are broader than this particular part of the bill. So I just want to address the issues he’s raised around equity.

So when the changes were made to increase the goods and services tax, at the same time there were changes to reduce the amount of income tax that those on lower incomes were having to pay. So the equity issue that the Minister has raised in this debate on Part 2—actually, he’s argued against the point that he was trying to make. He’s actually argued in favour of my colleague Jami-Lee Ross’ amendment, which basically says there should be compensation for those on lower incomes if you are increasing a tax called a regional fuel tax. There should be an offset for those on lower incomes.

The offset proposed by my colleague Jami-Lee Ross is one of supporting individuals in low-income households through the Social Security Act, and this is something I’m particularly interested in, being the National spokesperson on social development. This piece of legislation will have an impact—a disproportionate impact—on low-income households. The comments the Minister himself made in his comments on Part 2, which is the focus of this debate, were about equity. Well, I put to you that this bill that’s before us creates inequities that don’t exist today. The passage of this legislation, as proposed by this Government, will disadvantage low-income households.

There’s another equity issue that I want to raise—and I raise it because the Minister raised issues of equity and fairness—and that is the original intent of the regional fuel tax being about Auckland and the fact that what we have seen now is other regions introducing it. So you have the inequity—a double inequity—of a low-income family in Auckland that is paying more than a low-income family in another part of the country. So we have two inequities that the Minister and this Government have introduced. That is why I wanted to speak on Jami-Lee Ross’ amendment which basically allows, through the Social Security Act—and in some ways you could argue that the Government has a bit of a precedent in things like the winter energy payment, which is also for a significant cost to a household. There is a direct compensation for superannuitants and for low-income families of $700 a year, and it’s interesting that $700 a year is pretty much the same amount that the calculations have been—that this regional fuel tax will have. So I want to ask the Minister—[Time expired]

Taku mihi ki a koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere. Huri noa i Te Whare nei, kia pai tō tātou Matariki. Nō reira e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish everyone here in this House best wishes for Matariki. Greetings to one and all.]

E Te Kaiwhakahaere, thank you for giving me this opportunity. I was getting a bit of a complex. I thought I was under there and you couldn’t see me, but, anyway, kia ora. I just want to say this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, and also it’s the first time, particularly, that I’ve been able to introduce an amendment.

So my amendment seeks to amend the Local Government Act 2002, and this adds a new section 81(3) after section 81(2). What it does is that it actually introduces section 81(3), “Consultation with Iwi Prior to any Regional Fuel Tax Proposal”. What it says is that “Before a territorial authority seeks to submit a proposal on a regional fuel tax scheme under Subpart 3 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the Council must open consultation with the local Iwi(s) of the region.” I have actually heard this evening that word “consultation”, and I’ve heard that word “consultation” a number of times.

While we actually have been talking about this particular bill, at no point in this debate has anyone had a kōrero about Māori, or, in particular, the six Auckland iwi. In fact, there is not one mention in this bill around consultation with Auckland iwi. In a lot of ways, that there is a travesty, because when you look at the representation within this bill, at the moment there is none. When we think of the six Tāmaki iwi that make up the Auckland area, there are actually over 30 marae, and this large natural grouping accounts for over 150,000 of those members of those marae.

So I want to ask the Minister in the chair—and also, what about the Māori MPs on the other side of the Chamber there? You are part of, historically, the largest Māori caucus—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: That’s right.

—to be ever in this Parliament. That’s right, but where have you been? Where have you been? Why is there no consultation proposal in this particular bill? So why would you not consult with the Treaty partners? Why would you not consult with mana whenua?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Not me.

Why would you not consult with representatives of the most disaffected groups, who will suffer under this fuel tax? Why would you not consult with them?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I just need to remind the member not to refer to the Chair. Thank you.

Kia ora. So looking at this particular disaffected group, they are actually part of these iwi; they are part of these marae. These are the blue-collar workers, these are the shift workers, these are the marae members, these are the marae workers, and these are the volunteers that actually are going to be affected by this particular fuel tax. So when you look at an example, why would you not follow a piece of legislation called the Resource Legislation Amendment Act, in which, when we look at it, iwi are actually consulted very early in the process, and they’re also consulted right at the end of the process so that they’re not shut out? So why would you not actually put, as my amendment is stating, an amendment in here, in this amendment—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You are very kind. You have given me the opportunity to talk about my tabled amendment. Through you, I would like to request that the Minister consider this amendment, because the veterans have not been mentioned at all, and this is very important for the veterans. My amendment amends clause 12 to the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, and, after section 15(1)(i), inserts “(j) Whether the veteran lives in a region where a Regional Fuel Tax scheme is in place.”

As we know, the veterans are those people who have either served in the military forces or fought a war, and they are the ones who have made sacrifices. We should consider very seriously that they should be exempted from the regional fuel tax. I know the Minister is listening to all the speeches and he has made the effort to respond to those concerns raised by different speakers. Here, I would also like to request New Zealand First, through Clayton Mitchell, who is the representative of New Zealand First right now in the Chamber, and, in particular, the Hon Ron Mark, who always considers himself to be the champion of veterans—this is the amendment which is directly going to affect them.

This amendment ensures that Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand, when deciding whether to provide or contribute to the cost of transport for dependent veterans, can take into account the cost of the regional fuel tax. This is very important, because we know that veterans have limited resources, and if this fuel tax adds to their living costs they are going to suffer. We know they come to different events, like they stand up for the people of this country from time to time—in calamities, in natural disasters—they come and contribute. This is why this amendment is very important for the veterans, and I hope that I will get the support from the opposite side to get it through this process.

We know that the veterans from different wars have come back to New Zealand and now are living here. Veterans from the Korean War, from Malaysia, from Afghanistan, from Iraq, and from many other parts of the world have come back and settled down and are living in our country. Their contribution—not only their contribution but, I think, the sacrifices made by their families from time to time—should be considered.

I hope that the Minister will give consideration to my amendment, which amends the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 and inserts a subparagraph in that after subparagraph 15(1)(i): “(j) Whether the veteran lives in a region where a Regional Fuel Tax scheme in place.” I hope this relief will go a long way for the veterans. I thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the call. I want to speak on my amendment on this part, one which is all targeted at improving public confidence in the applicability and administration of the regional fuel tax. I think there are some deficiencies there that this amendment would certainly help.

This is a very serious business, permitting regional councils, in effect, to levy a tax to apply on large-scale roading or transport infrastructure projects. It’s a big deal. What is more, it is a much bigger deal than the public were led to believe. As the Government was muttering and murmuring about this prospective tax, they were talking all about Auckland, but it turned out, as the bill was introduced, that this actually permits a regional authority in any part of New Zealand to apply to levy a regional fuel tax; they just can’t actually levy it until 1 January 2021.

So it’s a big deal. Because of that, I think it’s appropriate that we look to strengthen the public’s confidence that if regional councils get the tax, it will be applied correctly, it’ll be administered correctly, and any probity issues that could potentially appear could be caught, because this will not just be Auckland. In fact, it won’t even just be Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington. The Minister Phil Twyford, last night in a contribution, claimed that National was scaremongering about a contagion and that this would spread like wildfire around the country. He said we were scaremongering.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I just want to remind the member and remind members that there have been lots of repetition of arguments, so I want you to present new arguments in this debate.

I am, Madam Chair. I’m just seeking to establish why I think it is important.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Right. We don’t need for the establishment of why; we just need the argument, thank you.

Very well, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We have all been listening to this debate for the last couple of sessions.

So my amendment requires that the Auditor-General, under the Public Audit Act 2001, must—must—undertake a performance audit “at least one year after the establishment of any regional fuel tax scheme under Subpart 3 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003,” on any of those 14 or more regions, those 14 that have already signalled that they want a piece of this.

The first part of the audit is, fundamentally, a performance audit. That’s the part which is ensuring that the relevant public entities are acting effectively and efficiently under the provisions of that Subpart 3. But it goes further: it also checks to ensure, under the audit, that the public entity is complying with all of its statutory obligations under that subpart. It goes further again, and this leads to, particularly, a cost-effectiveness or a cost efficiency. It also seeks to establish or identify “any act or omission of a public entity, in order to determine whether waste has resulted or may have resulted or may result in relation to [the] functions under subpart 3 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003:”.

Equally importantly—actually, I would argue, perhaps even more importantly—subclause (1)(d) of my amendment says, “any act or omission showing or appearing to show a lack of probity or financial prudence by a public entity or 1 or more of its members, office holders, and employees under subpart 3 of the Land Transport Management Act”. As the bill exists at the moment, it focuses in terms of its concern around the administration of the tax simply on determining an assessment of whether or not someone has avoided or evaded paying the tax. It doesn’t have a provision about the people who are actually administering the tax.

Now, it is true that the Minister could argue that they would already come under the ambit of the Public Audit Act 2001 as it stands. That is true, but my amendment goes further, in the extent that it requires that the Auditor-General may undertake that audit within one year. It also looks at the performance, including cost-effectiveness and cost efficiencies, and the probity and actions of the entity and its employees. This will strengthen public confidence in the bill, Minister. I recommend you take it up.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased because this is my very first contribution to the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.

💬 Chris Bishop: First of many.

First of many—first of many. Thank you. My contribution focuses around clause 10(5) in Part 2, and it is the amendment in the name of Jami-Lee Ross. What it states is: “After new section 34B(1)(c) insert new 34B(1)(d); How the RFT scheme has impacted on the cost of living”. This is what the bill is saying regional councils of a regional fuel tax region, in its annual report, must report on.

So I’m asking the Minister to add subsection (d) on, and the reason being is that in Canterbury, we have a Canterbury well-being survey that’s done through the Canterbury public health sector. They, obviously, survey the people of Canterbury to find out how their well-being is going over a period of time. Now, I reckon that because of this regional fuel tax, this bill—and Christchurch City Council have announced that they will also want to implement a regional fuel tax in the city—is going to have a negative impact on all of those people that live in the area that I help to look after, in the electorate of Christchurch East. I think, when the Christchurch City Council move on this, there are going to be a lot of people that live in that electorate that are going to be severely disadvantaged from it.

Not only that; I have just received on my phone right now a media statement stating that the Christchurch City Council will be increasing rates, over a three-year period, to 17 percent. More money going out of people’s pockets, and that is not right. A regional fuel tax on top of an increase in rates is going to happen across this country, should this bill go ahead. Therefore, regional councils have a responsibility—they have a responsibility—to the well-being of the people in their regions to actually report on the impact of what a regional fuel tax will actually do to the well-being of those people.

When I look at it, I also look at the Māori and Pacific whānau, because we all know that in every region of this country, Māori and Pacific peoples are the ones, you will find, that are mainly on the lower-paid incomes. They are always in that area. They do move up, some move up, but the majority of them work in jobs that pay low wages—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Look, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to interrupt the member, but the issue of equity has been well traversed throughout this particular part. Does the member have other contributions and other arguments to make in her contribution?

Well, actually, Madam Chair, I think it does need to be hammered in, because I don’t think that the people—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I’m asking the member to use other arguments. [Members seek call] No, the member is still speaking. I’m actually asking the member to continue her speech, but to use other arguments.

So I will continue my speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Anyway, yes, I do have extra to contribute, because, in this bill, in new section 34B, it also says in subsection (1)(b) that the council is also required to report on how the revenue will be applied by the council. Now, where I live, in Christchurch East, the place is becoming like pothole city in all of the roading area going in through Burwood and all around that particular area. So, therefore, if this bill is to go ahead, I would like to see those potholes actually filled up and repaired, with not just a little bit of hot mix put in, but the whole thing done up properly, because if that’s what this bill is going to end up doing, then that is going to take away—and I can say that now: it is going to impact on the way that people get around the city. It actually does impact on the amount of fuel it costs to actually move around the city, and with the regional fuel tax, they’re going to have to pay more.

Lots and lots of people go flying past on Travis Road every morning and every night, and this is going to severely impact the number of people that are going to be able to afford to do that. Some people might say, “Oh, but they might end up biking.” Well, I don’t think so. I think that they are going to be severely hit, and it’s going to actually show in the way that their living standards will drop.

Also, new schools are coming in there as well, so—[Time expired]

I think we’ll take one more.

💬 Stuart Smith: Madam Chair, I’ve asked ever so politely.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): All right, then. Stuart Smith.

Oh, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to address a clause that hasn’t been spoken to—that I’m aware of, anyway, and I think I’ve heard most of this debate—in new schedule 1AA in the schedule, new clause 4, “Additional amount to be paid before net revenue is paid to Auckland Council”. This is quite interesting. It says “if an RFT scheme is established for Auckland under section 65K before 1 January 2021, then, before paying any amount to the Auckland Council under section 65U, the Agency must pay to the Crown out of the revenue from the RFT scheme the amount of $1,000,000.”

Is this legislation for sale? It sounds like the work that’s gone into researching this piece of legislation—the Crown is seeking to recoup that investment in the initial take of the fuel tax. So what will be next? When the racing legislation, which will no doubt come out from the report that’s being done—and this might be of quite some interest to you, Mr Clayton Mitchell—comes in, will that also have a similar clause as this does? Because I think this is quite an insidious clause, and, you know, I think that it leaves Governments open for quite interesting accusations.

So I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford, to please take a call and please tell me the origin of this particular clause, what that money is to cover, how it was calculated, and, you know, why that is in there. Is this something that the Government will continue with? So I’d like to put that to one side.

But I’d like to now turn to the matter of GST, and I think one clause of this that hasn’t been looked at—and I think Dr Smith talked about the Rt Hon Winston Peters making 200-odd statements about tax on a tax. I’d like to offer Mr Peters an option to save some honour from this—find a way out so he can actually not look as though he’s a bit tardy on his reputation—because there is a way around this, and I would submit that the way around this would be to calculate the GST on the cost of the retail price of the petrol—or the fuel—excluding excise and the fuel tax, and then add the excise and the fuel tax on top of the GST inclusive price of the retail fuel.

Now why that isn’t a tax on a tax—as I can see the cogs whirring in Mr Mitchell’s head there trying to figure that out—is because, Mr Mitchell, excise and a fuel tax are a flat charge, whereas a GST is a percentage of the price. So that’s how you get a tax on a tax, and I think that Mr Peters—I see you’re texting him now. I think it’d be a really good thing for him to come down to the Chamber, put a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in, and put this to rights, because, you know, it really is a serious slight on his reputation that he’s made these claims about tax on a tax—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You cannot refer to a member who’s not present in the House.

OK. All right. But it would be a great thing, I think, if you could get an SOP to try and sort this tax on a tax out, because it is quite insidious. I think we see the same thing in the alcohol, with excise tax going on and then you get the multiplier. It extracts quite a significant greater income on that from GST, and that might be the aim. Maybe that is the aim of having GST on top of the excise-inclusive price rather than the exclusive price, but I think this is really bad governance. I can accept it’s been a long practice, and, you know, we’re as guilty as anyone else of that, but this is a wonderful opportunity to fix this anomaly in this legislation.

I can see—are you scribbling something down there, Mr Mitchell? I think that would be quite good to write that SOP now, and we could get that in and fix this piece of legislation, because I’m sure there’d be great support on this side of the Chamber. My colleagues would all join me in voting for that SOP to sort that anomaly out and get this bill in much better shape than it already is.

So, with that, I thank you, Madam Chair.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. If I may just have a moment of celebration, actually, if the committee won’t mind, I had a little phone call this evening from my daughter, who was in her school and they were having an assembly on volunteer week, and they wanted two people from the whole school to front and be part of the presentation and get a gift at the end. Everyone had their hands up, and she said, “Dad, it’s a really tough feeling when you’ve got your hands up and you don’t get picked.”, and there’s a few, perhaps, who are feeling like that this evening.

However, I would, in all seriousness, like to talk about Part 2, obviously, and particularly the section relating to amendments to the Local Government Act. The thing that I would like to particularly explore this evening is the theme of transparency and accountability, which, clearly, as we note in the departmental report, was an area of some debate between the two sides of the House as this particular piece of legislation went through the select committee process.

Now, specifically, in clause 10 in Part 2, in new section 34B, is a section relating to additional information, which, in and of itself, I think is a reasonable start—a reasonable, limited effort by the Government to have some obligations on regional councils with respect to transparency and accountability in its particular design of the annual report and the components that the annual report of the regional council that is benefiting from a regional fuel tax must cover.

This evening I would like to particularly speak to my colleague Chris Penk’s amendment—which I don’t believe has had much discussion this evening—that relates specifically to proposed new section 34B(1)(d), which is an insert into what I believe, like I say, is that limited criteria on reporting as part of the broader transparency theme. This particular amendment requires that the “Reporting of all RFT schemes should be received by each local board in a region and consultation undertaken with that local board prior to the consultation on the annual report.”

Certainly, when I put my hand up to support this particular amendment, I was thinking specifically of the Bay of Plenty region and the myriad of local boards that are part of the local government governance arrangements in that council, and in the broader Bay of Plenty Regional Council. It’s very clear that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council is potentially one of those councils who see the opportunity, through the options that are enabled in this particular piece of legislation, to put a regional fuel tax in.

Now, the key point here is that a number of our local boards have had significant disconnect between regional council roading priorities, and through that there is a risk that if there wasn’t an opportunity or an obligation on the regional councils who are part of a regional fuel tax scheme to liaise back in a more specific way—as outlined by this amendment—to those local boards, I think there is an opportunity for that very local voice to not be part of the broader regional fuel tax framework. Bearing in mind that one of the components of this piece of legislation is to ensure that the needs of a particular local community with respect to regional roading infrastructure are met, I think that this is a particularly useful addition to what I think is a reasonable start.

I think if you look at new section 34B(1)(a) through to (c), in clause 10(5), there are some reasonable components there, and I acknowledge Minister Twyford for at least going some way to putting some accountability and transparency into this bill. But I think the particular amendment in the name of my colleague Chris Penk will go a further, significant step to ensuring that there is great connection between people in the local communities and the regional councils if they are part of a wider regional fuel tax scheme.

I have many other contributions that I’d love to make, but I’m conscious that others would like to contribute to this very important debate. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the committee report progress and sit again presently.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just wanted to refer back to the earlier point of order raised by Mr Ross that was with regards to—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: No, there’s a question before the House—there’s a question before the House. You’ve got to wait.

—thank you—the addition of other amendments in Part 2 covering Acts not included specifically under that. The Chair was going to come back to us with his consideration on that in this part, and so I’d be interested to hear whether or not—

We’re still within the Part—[Interruption] Yes, I would just ask the member to resume his seat. The Minister actually had just put a question to the committee, so just a moment—will you just hold that.