Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to an amendment—there’s a couple of amendments, actually; I’ve just put a couple more into the Table Office—in my name but also to say that, in principle, this side of the committee will be opposing the title and commencement of the bill, as one would expect, because we are opposed to this bill proceeding any further. We are also opposed to the bill’s timing because we do not believe there’s been sufficient work done around a whole range of issues that we’ve already discussed. The reason why I’ve put forward my amendment is because I think there are some circumstances in which the issue of a regional fuel tax being in existence should actually fall out of place and should actually have an automatic repeal inserted into the legislation. The reason why I’ve done that is because the price which people pay for fuel in this country, impacted by tax hikes that the Government is responsible for, is a matter that should be considered as to whether a regional fuel tax should proceed.

I have questioned the Minister multiple times in question time to ask him whether he would show some consideration to the cost of fuel that people are paying, and I’ve asked him whether he would consider abandoning his plans for new tax hikes if the cost of fuel got to $3 a litre. Consistently, the Minister has refused to make a decision on that or give me an answer, claiming that it’s a hypothetical. Well, it might be a hypothetical that the cost of fuel might get to $3 a litre, but it is a very real possibility out there and it’s a very real possibility that has been discussed in the media—and I’d say, actually, many New Zealanders are concerned about the price they will be paying at the petrol pump and are concerned about the cumulative impact of fuel price increases because the Government has made decisions to increase the cost of fuel because they’re putting up taxes.

So my amendment inserts a new clause 3, which would see the whole regional fuel tax legislation fall out of force if, at any time, the average fuel price in New Zealand reaches $3 per litre, or if the average fuel price in a region that has an active regional fuel tax scheme reaches $3 per litre for fuel. We are concerned, on this side of the House, about how much people are having to pay. We are concerned, on this side of the House, about the cumulative impact of tax hikes and tax increases, which this Government, particularly, is responsible for. I know the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford, if he does take a call, will stand up and say we were responsible for 17c a litre in nine years, but I think it’s quite significant when this Government’s proposing 25c a litre in a shorter period of time of only three years—17c in nine years, or 25c in three years. And so it’s right and proper that this committee considers the way in which this bill should proceed, if at all, when the price gets to a certain point.

We know that the House going through the legislative process of repealing a whole piece of legislation is time consuming. Now, of course, the Government could take urgency again and structure bills in ways that curtail debate; that would probably speed it up. But we should have an automatic repeal clause in there, and I argue that it’s quite valid, because to let this bill proceed without such a repeal clause is saying that the House simply trusts the Minister to make quality and proper decisions when the price of fuel gets to a certain point. I’ve asked multiple times if he’ll do that; he refuses to comment. I’ve asked multiple times if he will assist the people of New Zealand, who are paying his taxes—whether or not he will make decisions in the future to abandon fuel taxes. I accept that the way the legislation’s drafted, he would have the ability, by Order in Council, to recommend to the Governor-General, if he felt that a certain price that people were paying for fuel was too high, that the regional fuel tax scheme could be abandoned, but we’ve had no certainty, we’ve had no answers, we’ve had nothing from the Minister to give us some advice around how he would see himself making decisions under the quite extensive powers, actually, for a regional fuel tax that are in the bill.

A further reason for considering this new clause is that whilst, you know, fuel’s around $2.20 or $2.50, hypothetically, and a 10c increase might not take it close to $3, it’s a very real possibility that the price of fuel could get to $3 not just because of normal market activity—normal market activity that they don’t want the Commerce Commission looking at immediately; normal market activity may take it to $3 a litre—but, in fact, because, where there are extensive powers under regulation-making powers granted through other parts of the bill, where the Minister can have the regional fuel tax price at a much higher point than 10c a litre, where there’s no constraint on that, if the Minister was to exercise his power, which will be granted in this bill, to increase a regional fuel tax to 25c a litre, or 50c a litre, hypothetically, then we’d get to $3 a litre quite a lot faster. And so an automatic repeal provision in this bill would be right and just to protect New Zealanders. And I think New Zealanders do need protection from tax increases.

The very purpose of a House of Representatives is to represent the people that we are sent here to serve, and I think we would be letting them down if we were not to put up some arguments as to why the tax increases that the Minister wants to put in place—where, I believe, they have a dangerous impact on people, where, if the cost of fuel gets so high, families around this country will be struggling to pay fuel, then I believe it should be automatically repealed. I know the Government thinks that they’ve solved all the cost-of-living issues with the Families Package that’s been referred to previously, but, I have to say, if the Families Package proceeds but the cost of fuel gets to $3 a litre, the additional impact on New Zealanders would far outweigh the potential positive benefits of their Families Package. So this would be recognition that the cost of living and the price point which people pay for petrol are very important, and I ask the Government to consider this amendment. I ask them to show some humility around their plans for the regional fuel tax. I ask them to show some compassion, actually, for the cost of fuel to people in New Zealand.

Whilst the market may be a significant dictator of how fuel prices are implemented around the country, the Government does have a big part to play, because we know that a significant portion of the cost of fuel right now is taxes, and this legislation before us gives the Minister more power to put in place more taxes—not capped at 10c a litre but capped at whichever point the Minister so desires when he’s considering his powers under regulation.

I also have a number of amendments, which I hope have made their way to you, around changing the title of the bill, and I do think that, where the Government has decided that they want to, in a very gung-ho fashion, proceed with a regional fuel tax, they take full ownership of it. One of my suggested amendments is to rename this bill the “Land Transport Management (Twyford Tax) Bill”. And whilst some may think that’s frivolous, I know that Mr Twyford, the Minister in the chair, is exceptionally proud of what he’s doing. He’s exceptionally proud of the fact that he is hiking taxes on Aucklanders and exceptionally proud of the fact that he is the one that is bringing forward legislation that lets Phil Goff off the hook with regards to his own promises around finding savings and efficiencies in the council. If Mr Twyford feels so strongly about that, then I think we should do the right thing and name it after him, because when a man as proud as Phil Twyford brings such legislation to the House, which he thinks will be part of his future legacy, where he hikes taxes on Aucklanders so that the Auckland Council doesn’t have to pay for part of the cost of his future light-rail plans, which I don’t think are affordable or necessary, then let’s do the right and decent thing and name it after him. I’m sure the Hon Phil Twyford—

💬 Simeon Brown: Immortalise his name. Immortalise his name.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Epitaph!

—would want his name immortalised in legislation. It’s not quite a statue. It’s not quite a plaque at the opening of his future light-rail project. It’s not quite a name on a building, but it’s a name on a piece of legislation—one that he’s proud of, one that he has so proudly shepherded through the House. And I say this is our gift to you, Phil Twyford: to name this Act of Parliament after you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak on these final two clauses of the bill.

As my colleague Mr Ross pointed out at the beginning of his contribution, we don’t support the bill, so it’s very difficult, of course, to support the commencement clause at all, let alone as it stands. But I would make this point and, actually, make a call to the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford. Why won’t the Minister be prepared to change this? There are very good reasons for adopting a change to the commencement clause. You see, the rhetoric and all of the talk, all of the press, around this bill before it landed in the House was it was all about a regional fuel tax for Auckland. As the Minister has pointed out in his own contributions over the course of this debate in the committee of the whole House, the Labour Party—so, the Minister in a previous capacity—had campaigned on a fuel tax for Auckland in the election campaign. But what they hadn’t campaigned on—and, in fact, what they hadn’t put into the public arena ahead of this bill being introduced—was that a regional fuel tax that could be applied in any region of New Zealand was coming.

So when the bill landed, New Zealand was suddenly faced with the prospect of a new tax outside of Auckland and, indeed, in any region in New Zealand, and they never saw that coming. The Government hadn’t signalled that. So you’ve got a new tax to be legislated for and approved in this parliamentary term, but it can’t be collected until 1 January 2021. That’s new to the public. They hadn’t had an opportunity to consider that in the election campaign—so when they made their decision over which party to support. So I think it is thoroughly appropriate that the Minister could now take the opportunity to amend the commencement clause such that no provision on this bill will take effect until 1 January 2021, because that gives New Zealanders ample opportunity to digest the truth and the facts of the matter around this bill and to make a decision at the next election as to whether or not they will support what my colleague has suggested be renamed the “Twyford Tax Bill”.

I think the Minister should do that because, in good conscience, that’s when the bill actually does what it says on the tin, which is not introduce new taxes. You then go through an election where people could have that information and make that decision. So I call on the Minister. He has it within his power right now to put a Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in to change the commencement clause, and I call on him to do that and to change it to 1 January 2021.

I would like to offer my voice in support of Mr Ross’ proposed amendment to the title of the bill—that it should be named the “Land Transport Management (Twyford Tax) Amendment Bill 2018”. I also agree with his idea that Mr Twyford, given he’s so proud of the new taxes he’s going to place one in Auckland and also enable the application and approval thereof across any region in New Zealand prior to the next election, should have his name in lights, recorded for posterity, or any other view of the taxpayers and voters of New Zealand. He should have his name indelibly inked on the bill so that the public can always know that it was Phil Twyford, Minister Twyford, who told them that he wasn’t imposing a new tax, it was an Auckland regional fuel tax only, but actually introduced legislation that not only enabled a regional fuel tax to be debated but actually approved—approved—for any region in New Zealand ahead of the next election, and the fact that it can’t be levied until 2021 does not take away from the fact that this legislation allows for the absolute, concrete locking-in of fuel taxes for regions outside of Auckland.

The Minister could also perhaps take an opportunity to do his own Government SOP for a different bill name. I think it could validly be known as the “Land Transport Management Regional Fuel Tax - Distortion of Collection Thereof Amendment Bill.” The Minister has acknowledged in his contributions that it is regressive, it’ll hurt lower-income earners more. His response to that was that it’ll be good for them in the long run, which I argue is thoroughly patronising. But there have been a lot of contributions around how, either through deliberate intent or, more likely, through natural competitive forces in the competitive market, in Auckland in particular to begin with, the actual pricing—not the tax component—will be spread around communities across New Zealand so that, in effect—not illegally so, but in effect—the consumers and businesses outside of Auckland will end up paying, in effect, part of the regional tax price amount that should be applied to Auckland in the first instance. So I call upon the Minister to make an amendment to acknowledge that so the public can know.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wish to speak on the title of this bill. I will firstly just reflect very quickly on the point made by Jami-Lee Ross that this memorialising of Mr Twyford’s name will not be a statue. It will none the less be a statute, the difference only being a ‘t”—and, of course, as oil is sometimes referred to as “Texas Tea”, maybe there is some appropriateness there. Another thought I had in relation to the title of the bill was that it could be something along the lines of “Fill Up, Phil Down”, so fill up your petrol and Phil will go down—whether that’s Phil Twyford of Phil Goff, I suppose, punters may make their choice as they see fit, certainly within the Auckland region. But, actually, having thought about those possibilities, I decided upon a different approach.

I thought the words “regional fuel tax” are, obviously, pretty integral to the bill, but the Government, surely, would not want to be associated with such a concept, and so I thought if we were to switch the letters of those words around, if we were to sort of mix it up somehow but still retain that character by way of an anagram, then we might come up with something at least as useful in understanding what this bill is about. So an anagram for “regional fuel tax” is a “regulation flex”, and it seems to me appropriate that we will have a mechanism for creating regulations, flexing the muscles of the Government to be able to tax New Zealanders in this way. Alternatively, we could have a “relegation flux” which could indicate the passage—I say that, perhaps euphemistically—of the “relegation” or perhaps “delegation”, if that were to have fitted, of the powers of the Government to those who will be setting in the future such schemes in place.

Other options allowed by my desire to mix things up a little bit in this way include also a “loafer exalting”. I rejected that, however, because it seemed to me that it might suggest that there was particular enjoyment being taken by the Minister, and it seems to me that a loafer is not a fair description of the Hon Phil Twyford. So I rejected that along with the similar, a “fouler exalting”, because that seems—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Could I just call the member to order. I know there is a little bit of levity that often accompanies the title and commencement phase of the committee stage. However, we are starting to stray outside of any sense of relevancy to the bill, so I would ask the member to come back to that, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak in relation to the title and, more narrowly, perhaps, now in relation to the actual title as it currently sits and to just sort of analyse how that all fits together. The bill is a land transport management (regional fuel tax) bill. The word “land” to me implies—and I think most New Zealanders would read the ordinary, natural meaning of the word “land” to indicate that it would be about fuel for vehicles that travel by land, and yet we have learnt through the process of discussing the bill in relation to non-commercial ships, to which it will apply, and potentially other craft that do not travel on land as well, that, actually, it should not be the Land Transport Management Act only that is amended in this way.

Now, I’m not proposing that any other Acts be amended, because that would be more appropriate to a Part 2 debate. However, I wonder if some clarification could be given in the title of the bill to make it clear that the usual presumption is that a land transport management Act will actually continue to refer only to matters of land transport. Hence something along the lines of “Regional Fuel Tax in Relation to Land and Other Media or Domains” would perhaps be a useful way of setting out that distinction that is being made in this bill.

My final point relates to the word “regional” within that, and much has been said already about the fact that it is going to be on a regional basis. However, it’s worth setting out clearly, I think, in the title of the bill that there will be multiple regions, lest anyone be unclear.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I purposely waited to the end of that speech, although I’m starting to regret that. I’d like you to consider Speakers’ rulings 114/6 and 115/1, in regard specifically to the motion that a Minister’s name be included in the title of this bill, I ask that you offer a ruling on whether these proposals are indeed in order.

Thank you. I thank the member for his contribution. We have been considering that particular matter, and, as you would have guessed by my bringing the previous speaker, Chris Penk, back to relevancy, I have been considering whether including the name of the honourable Minister within the title of the bill, as proposed in the amendment by Jami-Lee Ross, is actually frivolous. I could rule it out of order in that case, or I could wait for the will of the committee to determine that at the end of the proceedings. In this case, I am looking to members to continue to be relevant, so in this case I am ruling that the will of the committee will prevail, and we will allow the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I wish to speak to my amendment around the title of this bill. Now, unlike under Mr McAnulty—I think I’ve said that right—I actually don’t see any problem at all with a Minister wanting to be fairly immortalised for posterity in the name of the bill. Actually, I take it back to that lovely American tradition where you have all these bills named after people and laws that are named after whatever. I also would say things like some of the laws that we have in New Zealand lack the punch—lack the punch—and I see it in actually stating what they’re all about.

So my amendment is that the bill be renamed to the “Land Transport Management and all of Regions Fuel Tax (Phil) Amendment Bill”. Why I say that is because the Phil in this case that I am referring to is a P-H-I-L Phil, not an F-I-L-L. But I love that. It’s the same thing. I think that this could be an excellent name, because that way when everybody around the country—not just Auckland, because this is actually not an Auckland bill; this is actually a bill that was promoted as an Auckland bill but is not an Auckland bill. It can relate to any region in the country. When people go around New Zealand and pay the extra money on their fuel tax and the GST on top of that fuel tax, they will want to say this is because of the “Phil Bill”. Whether it’s a Hon Phil Goff bill or a Hon Phil Twyford bill, it’s still the “Phil Bill”. I think that that’s so much better—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Poetic justice.

I think it is poetic justice, yes—from the Hon Nick Smith—a very good idea from the Hon Nick Smith.

I think it’s the sort of thing where if you’re going to have—generally, nobody likes paying taxes. Well, no—everyone likes someone else to pay taxes. So when you go to fill up the car, it will be an “I’m filling up on the Phil Bill”. People in Papakura, in my electorate, who have to pay so much in fuel tax if they are travelling into the city or travelling to west Auckland or travelling to the North Shore or travelling further south, they will want to know who to thank for that regional fuel tax, because they certainly won’t be thanking the Hon Phil Goff for the Mill Road extension if it stops at Alfriston School. That is going to be funded by some of these taxes. They’re certainly not going to thank the Hon Phil Twyford if the Mill Road extension goes to Alfriston School, doesn’t go through to Papakura, doesn’t go through to Drury, and doesn’t open up the way through for all the developments that have been planned and which the Minister of Housing and Urban Development—also the Hon Phil Twyford—has been so busily promoting, which are, actually, just a bit too far away from the Mill Road extension to be of much use.

I think it’s important that we have bills that people can find when they’re looking for statutes—that’s the other thing. A lot of these bills that you put through, and Acts of Parliament, they’re so numerous and they have such generic and, really, no fun at all names—people can’t find them. Who’s going to know where to find a Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, because it will go into the main Act and it will just be swallowed. Much, much better, I think, in future, that we start thinking about giving these bills names that New Zealanders can find when they look in the legislation website to look for relevant legislation. Because that’s one of the hard things. I’m a lawyer—a very experienced one. It’s not so hard for me, but actually, we’re not here for me; we’re actually here for New Zealanders all over the country, and they should be able to know this is a “Phil Bill”.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take my first call on the land transport management title and commencement part of this piece of legislation. I just want to continue our discussion around the title of this piece of legislation. I’ve just put an amendment on the Table which I think is a very good one, and I think it’s one which the committee should take some time to consider. The proposal is that this Act should be called the “Land Transport Management (Let’s Tax This) Amendment Act 2018”, because, to be frank, this legislation and this regional fuel tax, which will eventually be a fuel tax across all of Auckland—as we know, it’s not going to be regional; it’ll be for the whole country—will have an impact on literally everything which people buy. I think of the people in my electorate in Pakuranga, who are working hard and they drive their children to school, they go to work, and every time they fill up their car they have to pay the regional fuel tax. They go to the shops, and the goods which arrive at the supermarket come on a truck, and that has to include the cost of the regional fuel tax. They go to a cafe, and at the cafe they get a coffee and there are some sandwiches or whatever they get, and the goods and services—wherever they go, this regional fuel tax will have an impact and have a cost on everything. As they will go along the road, as they go there, they will pay the regional fuel tax.

So the name of this legislation should reflect the impact, in my view, that it is going to have on literally everything that people purchase and the way that people get around and the journeys that people take. Also, I think it reflects quite nicely on how the Labour Government, or the coalition Government, should I say, with the three parties—their view of how taxation should just be made up and tax everything, and I think that’s a good slogan of how this Government’s approach to taxation has taken place, of just literally taxing everything.

I remember a promise that there would be no new taxes, and here we are in the first year of this Government with a tax which—yes, they said there’d be a tax for Aucklanders—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Repetition.

They said there’d be a tax for Aucklanders, but it’s a tax for the whole country. So that’s a suggestion, and I look forward to the will of the committee on that. I think there are a number of other names which this could be called—the “Broken Promise Act”, because it is a broken promise, and that goes back to the point I would just make, so I won’t reflect too much further on that because I already have made that point.

The “Travel to Hamilton to Get Your Fuel Tax Act”, because for the first three years, while Aucklanders will have—I know the member for the Waikato is here, and he loves Hamilton, and a lot of people in this House have good memories of that place. Some of them live here, some of them visit, but we know how great a place Hamilton is. But if you’re going to go there to get your tax, well, that’s what this legislation’s going to be doing for the next three years. So maybe that’s one way—but I guess you’d need to change the commencement if you were going to put that title in, because after 2021 we know that other regional councils are able to put in place these taxes. So maybe if that was the title that this committee was to agree to, maybe there should be some way to have the name of the Act changed over time. So the first three years it can be referred to as the “Go to Hamilton to Get Your Tax”, but once Hamilton’s got its tax, obviously you won’t be going to Hamilton because everyone will be paying across the country for their legislation.

There’s been a number of other names about fill up, Phil down, and I think those are also good to be thought about. I think the other thing which is—I mean, in those names is really the reflection that this tax is letting Auckland Council off the hook. It’s letting Auckland Council off the hook, and I’m not sure if there’s some way we can allow this legislation to reflect the fact that Phil Goff said that he would reduce savings by 3 to 4 percent, which is enough for this tax to not be necessary. If he’d kept to his promise to reduce costs and to find savings in Auckland Council, we know that this legislation would not have been required.

So I think this committee needs reflect upon that, reflect upon the fact that the Auckland Council, which this legislation will initially apply to—the mayor promised, and now we’re letting him off the hook by letting this legislation go through so that he can tax his constituents and tax my constituents to pay for a range of projects. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance specifically in relation to that previous speech and the proposal to change the title of the bill to make a political point. I refer you specifically to Speakers’ ruling 115/1(3) and the rulings of Chairpersons Braybrooke and Hartley, which give the example of the Tariff (Zero Duty Removal) Amendment Bill and changing that to make a political point. I put it to you that proposing to change the name of the title of this bill to one which is a clear reference to a political slogan from the last campaign would be in breach of that Speakers’ ruling.

Thank you, and I thank the member Kieran McAnulty for his intervention. I’m not sure that it’s entirely helpful given my previous ruling; however, I will consider that. And, as I said, there are two options: whether we leave it to the will of the committee, or whether I make a ruling. I am strongly suggesting that we don’t continue to embark upon that journey. We are getting to the point where relevancy is being tested within this committee, in terms of the titles that are being suggested. So I’m making a strong suggestion to members of the committee in that regard.

I move, That the question be now put.

The Jami-Lee Ross amendment changing the title to the Land Transport Management (Twyford Tax) Amendment Bill is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jami-Lee Ross to clause 1 be agreed to:

Clause 1

Replace Clause 1 with:

Land Transport Management (Not Just Auckland but Other Regions Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

Simeon Brown’s amendment changing the title to the “Land Transport Management (Twyford and Goff) Amendment Bill” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Simeon Brown’s amendment changing the title to the “Land Transport Management (Let’s Tax This) Amendment Bill” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Judith Collins’ amendment changing the title to the “Land Transport Management (Phil) Amendment Bill” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.