Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill

It gives me great pleasure to take a first call on this bill. When we look at it, we’re getting a taxation regime as the first thing on our Wellbeing Budget day, which is something that many speakers have raised here already. It just seems very ironic that a Government that is focused on wellbeing really wants to put taxes on the most hard-working and dedicated members of the New Zealand community. The hard-working people of our regions and our cities will be paying more for petrol from this Wellbeing Budget.

It’s not a small increase that they’re putting on. They’re putting on an 8c increase over two years. The first part, Part 1, talks about the first effect, which will be the 3.5c that comes into effect—plus GST gives you the 4c that will come into effect. And it’s great that we’ve got the Minister here, because I note that when the Minister brought in the last set of charges on excise tax, he came to the figures that—basically, the figures that you’d be looking at here, under Part 1, would, effectively, be $260 per car, per year; 260 bucks. So all those people that are thinking that this is a Budget that will actually help them, well, you’re 260 bucks down this year now, under this Budget, and that’s the reality of it.

Then we’ve got the intricacies of where that money is actually going, because there are no roading projects post-2020. They’ve all been cancelled. Well, the Waikato Expressway, Hamilton bypass, is still going—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I hope we can start this debate the way I hope it will continue, in that it is a very narrow debate and the member was very useful in referring to the clause on which he was speaking, but we are talking about the collection of the excise rather than the use of the excise, OK? Thank you.

Yeah, and so the collection of the excise is very important, and the reason the Minister gave for that collection of the excise is rail, and that was one of the things they talked about in the Budget today. It was a very high priority in the Budget, was rail. When we look at that, the 3.5c—going to 4c with GST—goes into the pot of funding. It doesn’t go to one particular form. It just goes into the general fund that they use, and that’s the hypothecation.

That general funding is going to be disproportionately used on rail, under the Minister’s change in priorities that you’ve seen in recent years, and that’s been seen, effectively, in the removal of a lot of roading projects in the regions. My region, for example, is one of those that’s had that effect. So 4c each Waikato motorist will be paying, under clauses 3 and 4, to take effect on 1 July—they will be paying that extra 4c and they will get no benefit for it, because there are no rail projects of significance that will be funded from that.

The Minister’s looking at me, and I know he wants to explain the train option that he’s looking at, from Hamilton to Auckland, but that’s only for 150 people. That’s the maximum number of people that can go on it. So there’s going to be 300,000 people in the Waikato paying 4c from 1 July, under clauses 3 and 4, and there are 150 people that will get some benefit from it. So that is demonstrably unfair to the residents of the Waikato. You’re going to see that across the other regions, and I’m sure other members will stand up and give their own stories. Some of them won’t even have any payment in relation to that, but in the Waikato, we have had one option, but it isn’t a very effective option.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): As I said to the member before, this is about the collection of excise, not about expenditure.

Yeah, and because the Minister looked over and was obviously wanting to make comment around that, I was clarifying it for him so that he wouldn’t make an inappropriate comment and would do it with the full facts.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s very helpful of the member—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: But irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): —but perhaps not needed.

Well, the relevance of it, Mr Jones, is that 4c is a lot of money, and when you add it up to 8c over the two clauses, that affects New Zealand families. This is a time when people are finding the cost of living very difficult. We’re putting more costs on to New Zealand families and on New Zealand motorists, and that affects the productivity of the country, it affects the economic growth of the country, and it affects the spending power of families because they can’t get out of this cost. It’s not something that you have a choice around. Every time you fill up at the gas tank, you’re going to be paying 4c extra now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, the question that I have for Minister Phil Twyford and for the officials that are with him is just how much extra tax revenue—we’re dealing with Part 1 here; excise revenue—will he be gathering in the three months from 1 July to 1 October, when most people were expecting the second round of tax that we’re talking about in Part 1 to come in, because motorists will remember with horror that the extra fuel taxes came in on 1 October last year, and it was the first of three years’ successive increases of fuel taxes that this Government was bringing in in totality, amounting to 13c or 14c extra, after GST, per litre for petrol and the equivalent for road-user charges.

So they came in on 1 October, and most people were budgeting fearfully for the next round to come in this year and for another one to come in next year. They were thinking it was 1 October, because that was what it was like last year, and we will have this rude awakening when we see in this legislation that it’s 1 July. They’ve brought it forward an extra three months. So I’d be very keen to get from the Minister and from his officials how much extra revenue you’re crimping or sneaking out of New Zealanders with bringing this in an extra three months earlier, and then we can have a sense of just how much in totality is being collected by these taxes. I think the Minister once mentioned that it might be an extra $120 million a year, but I’d be very keen just to get a sense of exactly how much he expects to be gathered from this revenue, because, frankly, looking at the regulatory impact statement, it’s very hard to work out exactly what we’re getting.

I note the Chair’s comments that this is a bill about revenue, but you cannot talk in this House about revenue without the flip side of what the revenue is going to. That’s the yin and the yang of the equation, and if we can’t understand what the money is being spent on, then we don’t have any sort of sound basis on which to have a discussion. So that’s why it’s perfectly legitimate for us to ask the question of where the money is going.

But, anyway, in the first instance, there was the—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You may think that, but it’s actually up to the Chair to decide whether that is the case, and I have already spoken to a previous member to say that this is about the collection of excise. You perhaps can touch on it, but I’m not expecting wide-ranging debate on that particular point.

So am I understanding you to say that here, in this House, when we debate a taxation bill—effectively, a taxation bill—we would only have a debate about the nature of how the tax is collected, and we’re not allowed to talk about what it’s going to be spent on?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the committee stage of the bill. The committee stage is—

Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): —in general, about a clause by clause debate. So we are debating the clauses of the bill.

Yes, and the clause of the bill is increasing the taxes collected from the motorists, and the motorists have a reasonable understanding to know what the tax is to be spent on. If we can’t in the committee stage of this House discuss that, then I think we’re unfairly scrimping the nature of the discussion that we’re having.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are talking about committee stage, not first, second, or third reading. So I don’t need to give you any further clarification, but continue with your call.

So I’m looking across to the officials and I’m very interested to know what the extra three months’ revenue gathered from the collection of this excise duty of 3.5c per litre, plus GST, imposed from 1 July 2019—only nine months after the previous increase, on 1 October 2018—will be. What I think the motorists of New Zealand will be surprised and shocked to discover is that even though they may have budgeted to expect an increase in the petrol price on 1 October, they will find, in a rude awakening, that it arrives on 1 July. So that is my question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s quite remarkable, isn’t it, that here we are on Budget night, and the first piece of legislation we are debating under what is supposedly the world’s first wellbeing Budget is making New Zealanders worse off. In Part 1, they’re worse off because most people are not in the position to claim back GST—most motorists. It’s not 3.5c a litre they are worse off by, but it’s actually 4c, or 4.025c, because most New Zealanders who will get caught by this legislative change will not be able to claim back the GST they will have to pay in an inclusive amount.

The real challenge I have with this is that there’s no question that the clause, as it’s written, is going to take that money off New Zealanders. No one’s going to debate that it won’t work—it will work. In fact, it will work too well, because too many New Zealanders are caught up in this. The Government is looking to impose a charge on New Zealanders that most of them cannot get away from. They can’t get away from it if they are driving their own motor vehicles. They can’t get away from it if they are taking the bus. They are challenged to try to avoid this tax. Any good piece of taxation should offer not only incentives to consider doing something else but should be considerate of the prospect of people having choice, and they don’t, in many cases, or at least not choices that will allow them to legally avoid paying this imposition.

So I’ve come to help the Minister. My amendment will help him, and he doesn’t need to thank me, but I’ve got some great news for him: we’ll stop this. We’ll can this particular increase in Part 1 because, Minister—great news—your fees-free policy didn’t work and the Minister of Finance has $198 million spare. The Minister has previously responded to written questions as to what this charge of 4c a litre, including GST, would raise over the course of a year, and his answer was, roughly speaking, $120 million. So, Minister, it’s great news: you want $120 million out of Part 1 each year, and Mr Robertson has got a spare $197 million in cool cash just lying around because no extra students came into tertiary study.

But there’s even better news. There’s even better news because—to be clear, Madam Chair—while the excise charge must go into the National Land Transport Fund, and the National Land Transport Fund must be used to fund land transport, the other really good bit of news for the Minister is that land transport projects can also be funded from other sources such as general taxation surpluses. So the great news, Minister, is that this tax is not required, because the Government has some other sources from which they can bring about the same amount of revenue to apply. The really great news is that if you’re not going to have extra students in the first year of the fees-free policy, you’re not going to get any more in the future years. In fact, if you’ve only got students that were going to go anyway—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Ahem.

—you could can the whole—I’m getting to the point, Madam Chair—funding of the whole thing, because it’s a multi-year thing. I’m not just trying to say to the Minister it’s one year. I appreciate that this excise would otherwise last until otherwise stopped. So if they got rid of the complete fees-free policy, he could fund it year in and year out as well. So I offer this piece of assistance to the Minister: scrap this first year of excise, go to Mr Robertson, and get some other cash.

There’s another bonus—a real added bonus—because, of course, we know that the Labour Party came from the workers and that they represent workers’ rights, and we know from looking at the regulatory impact statement that officials hold that this excise tax is regressive. So this excise tax, should it go ahead, will harm lower-income New Zealanders more than the well-off. It will harm the very people that the Labour members have always purported to represent but whom they are trying to sting with $120 million a year extra in excise tax. A difficult one to square that circle, but none the less, I’m here to help—I’m here to help, Minister.

We can can this excise, and all of those lower-income New Zealanders are going to think that’s a great thing—you’d actually help their wellbeing in this Wellbeing Budget because you won’t have imposed this additional tax on them, you won’t have stripped $120 million out of their pockets. It’ll be theirs to use in whatever pressures and circumstances they have in their lives. It’s my gift to you, Minister. You don’t need to thank me, Minister—the Minister doesn’t need to thank me. But I offer you this; it’s an opportunity to do what’s good for New Zealanders. It would be good for the Government. I’d encourage you to take it up, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair, it’s a wise decision on your part, if I might say so. I’ve been sitting up in my office, watching the first and second reading debates for this bill, and I saw that we were getting to the committee stage. I was compelled to come down to the Chamber because I’ve got a series of questions that I’d like to ask the Minister that relate to Part 1, particularly that relate to clause 3 of Part 1, and specifically around the words “motor spirits”.

Now, just by way of a background: just before Christmas, I had the good fortune to purchase a new car and—

💬 Hon David Bennett: I thought you were going to get pulled over for drink-driving.

No, no, no, no, nothing like that, no. I travel the vast, extensive roading network around the beautiful Coromandel electorate extensively. So it gets to be that, every few years, a new car is required. So this time, I made the momentous decision to, in fact, buy an electric vehicle, Minister. So in the months since before Christmas through to last week, I have clocked up something like 16,000 kilometres in my electric vehicle, 100 percent charged and no motor spirits have been used; not a single drop—not a single drop of motor spirits of the sort that are referred to in clause 3 of Part 1 of this bill have been used. So I’ve been using roads, I’ve been travelling along roads, and like thousands of other drivers of electric vehicles, I haven’t been contributing anything in terms of excise tax to the roading infrastructure of the country. Now, there are some of my colleagues who think that’s a terrible thing—it’s a terrible, terrible thing.

Now, my question to the Minister is that this is a Government that purports to be one that has an eye on environmental matters; but actually the walk doesn’t match the talk. This bill, particularly clause 3 of Part 1, is a classic example of that. So due to some foresight as a way of trying to encourage greater use of electric vehicles, currently they are exempt from road-user charges and, of course, paying motor spirit excise duties and taxes, because they don’t use any motor spirits; and yet they’re using the roads. So my question to the Minister is: what provision will he make, at some point, to review those matters? I understand that a review is due in 2021—and I think this is a question.

Now, perversely, one of the odd things that have happened since this Government came to power is the uptake of electric vehicles has actually slowed down. Part of the reason that people are actually buying electric vehicles and not paying motor spirit excise currently is that they’ve been waiting—waiting—for this Government to promote some kind of incentives for the purchasing and use of electric vehicles; 100 percent emissions-free vehicles of the sort that the Green Party want the entire country to be driving, and we saw how well that kind of policy—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the member, if I’m going to be consistent with where I’ve gone before. I have allowed you to stray a little. So I’d like you to come back. I know you’re referring to words within the amendment bill, but—

Yes, I am. I’m referring to the “motor spirits” words in clause 3 of Part 1, and how they don’t apply to a significantly increasing number of vehicles on our roads that don’t pay, that are excluded—that are specifically excluded. I think that this is something that maybe the officials may not have considered in the drafting of this bill. Is the Government going to—and the Minister in the chair, I’m sure, can probably answer this question—review the position of electric vehicles and their current exemptions from the motor spirits—well, because they don’t use motor spirits—the fees, the portion that they should fairly pay for using the country’s roads, particularly if they’re driving around the beautiful Coromandel electorate? Is that a matter that he has considered; is it a matter that the officials have considered; and is it something that should rightly and correctly and properly be addressed in clause 3 of Part 1 of this bill?

As I say, currently there are some 15,000 or 16,000 electric vehicles not paying any contribution at the moment. That’s due, I understand, to be reviewed in 2021. There’s no mention of electric vehicles in this bill, and yet the impost of 4c a litre is going to be put on everybody else using vehicles that consume motor spirits.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to do the best that I can to keep specifically to the parts of the bill. It’s interesting today, though, that in this Wellbeing Budget, it’s my view that the Government has given and tonight we’re taking away. If you look at the press release that was put out by the Hon Phil Twyford when the Government policy statement came in, and he talked about the excise tax, he actually included some tables in that press release, which talked about what the increase in excise would be and what the increase in road-user charges would be in those years, and it breaks it down by deciles. That’s important, because today the Government has announced, on school donations, a reduction in donations—

💬 Hon Member: Only for certain schools.

Only for certain schools. So I’ve got it broken down in deciles on the excise tax. What it says here—and this is from Mr Twyford himself—is that for a decile 1 family in Auckland, it’ll be another $3.64 a week; decile 2, $2.54; decile 3, $4. I can keep going through that; I won’t but I can. The reason I say that is when you add that up—when you add that up—that is more than the relief they’ve given to parents in the very same Budget today. So today they’ve given relief to school donations, and here we are, the first bill up, in the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill is a tax to take more than that money away from those very same families. When I look at this bill and the Wellbeing Budget, they are giving and they are taking away.

There’s one other part of this bill, which I wish to raise with you and the Minister. In Part 1, clause 4, it talks about the rates of refund of excise duty and the excise-equivalent duty and how they’re amended. I’ll remind the Minister that, when the changes were made to the Auckland fuel tax and proposals were made to change the excise tax after the Government policy statement, there was an issue raised about the use of agricultural vehicles in horticulture and farming from going from one farm to the other, and that was going to be addressed through regulations as part of that bill. When we look at this clause tonight and they’re talking about tables of refunds, I see no mention of any specific clause that deals with that issue. I’d like to remind the Minister that, at the time, he suggested he would bring to us a way that that was going to be dealt with. To the best of my knowledge, as we sit here tonight over a year on, that hasn’t.

So, as I talk in front of this committee and as I talk to this bill on the excise tax itself, there were issues raised previously, there were issues raised about the refund mechanisms which are talked about in here, in Part 1, clause 4, and even for next year; and they’re not mentioned. To the best of my knowledge, no significant work has been made to deal with that issue. If you go to areas like I’m particularly connected with, in Hawke’s Bay and Pukekohe, where there is a lot of inter-farm, inter-property movement, then those people are paying excise and regional fuel tax and, to the best of my knowledge, it’s not mentioned. I would have thought, as part of the Wellbeing Budget, not only would we have understood these tables that Mr Twyford produced in 2018 which show the decile preferences but we would also have had some relief given in these regulations to the very things that were asked for at the time.

So I’m disappointed tonight, as we come before this Parliament in a legislative way under urgency to address a whole lot of issues, that that small issue could not be addressed as part of these regulations. So, in closing, my view is this Government is giving and taking away, and it is a significant burden if you look at the numbers—the average is $2.50 a week, according to Mr Twyford, and in Auckland it’s $5.77 a week if you include the regional fuel tax. Those are significant impositions on the very families this Government is supposing to help.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When we come to talk about legislation—

💬 Hon Member: Give someone else a turn.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The member has a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP); so he takes some precedence over the—thank you. Just to quieten down the grumbles.

Thank you, colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And it would be helpful if the member spoke to his SOP.

Thank you, I will come to my SOP in just a moment because, when we talk about legislation that brings in new taxes or excises, one of the fundamental questions that we have to grapple with is: upon whom does the burden of this new tax fall? You might think it’s obvious—it’s the motorist who goes up to the petrol station and pays to put the petrol or the diesel into their car. But, indeed, it is much broader than that, because everything that New Zealanders buy, whether it’s a cup of coffee, a banana, a bunch of grapes, a new phone, everything that they purchase has to be transported, and if it’s transported, it relies on the petrol and diesel that is included. So what we’re talking about here is a 5 percent increase this year in the road user charges and the petrol prices. It’s year on year for three years, so all up it’s an over 15 percent increase. We all know, everybody knows, that the price of petrol and diesel fluctuates enormously because of international prices, but one thing that doesn’t fluctuate is the tax—the tax stays the same, and it keeps on rising.

So all Kiwis, in all walks of life—the ones that don’t drive around a great deal still pay for it in every tub of ice cream that they buy, and everything that they get from the supermarket; every time they want to buy a pair of jeans. It’s all added into the overall cost of living. This excise tax that we’re talking about today is another reason why Kiwis are finding it hard to get ahead, and that’s another reason why the young woman on the front cover of the Wellbeing Budget happens to no longer be in New Zealand, because of the cost of living. This Minister needs to take stock of that and recognise that even though it might just, on the surface of it, be at the petrol pump where people feel this pain, you do need to recognise that it filters through to the rest of society.

A second question that I have for the Minister is in relation to this. Of course, the increased excise tax on motorists is designed to—they pay that tax because they want to have good transport infrastructure. But the question that has arisen is under the Minister’s Government policy statement. His signal is that the biggest project that will be bought with this money is the slow tram down Dominion Road. That has been described and justified as an urban regeneration project.

💬 Chris Bishop: Sorry, say that again?

An urban regeneration project. So what I want an answer from the Minister on is: is urban regeneration a legal and appropriate thing to spend road taxes on—taxes that have gone into the National Land Transport Fund? I want to know from the Minister whether it is legal to spend that money on an urban regeneration project. If the slow tram is one part transport and nine parts urban regeneration, is that legal? Or, if it’s two parts transport and eight parts urban regeneration, is that legal? I want to have a clear and concise answer from him on that point.

Finally, my SOP was a simple one, which is to say that, in Part 1, this tax should not come in on 1 July; it should come in on 1 October, like it did last year, when everybody was expecting it to come in, before this Government brought in a sneaky change to bring it in on 1 July and crib an extra three months’ tax out of New Zealanders, who weren’t expecting it. I’d like to know, and so that SOP suggests that, and I would be grateful if the committee could consider that SOP carefully and give it due thought. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will endeavour to address the issues and the questions raised by members on the Opposition benches that are within scope. David Bennett made the comment that he believed—and I’m not sure where he sourced this information from—that the cost of the excise increases in this bill would amount to the equivalent of $260 a year, per car. I want to say to Mr Bennett that the analysis provided by the Ministry of Transport would tell us that the effect of one of these increases would be 83c a week for the average family. For lower income families it would amount to 40c a week. All three increases together would amount to $2.50 a week for the average household, and for lower income households it would amount to $1.24 a week.

I think it might have been, possibly, perhaps, Mr Goldsmith who asked how much extra revenue will be gathered between 1 July and 30 September, and the best estimate we have is around $30 million. Paul Goldsmith, in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that wants to replace the 1 July starting date with 1 October, for both parts of the bill—two SOPs—the effect of this would be a very significant loss of revenue and, of course, it would just simply contradict the Government’s desire to synchronise the period with the financial year.

The only other question that I think was in scope was Mr Goldsmith’s question about whether or not the excise is regressive and the answer, of course, is that it’s no more regressive than the totally inadequate public transport systems.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I didn’t ask that.

Well, I think the member asked about the burden of the tax falling on the people who can afford it least. OK, well, it was another indistinguishable colleague.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What about the urban regeneration?

Well, I don’t believe that that question is in scope.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to Part 1 of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, I’ve found some good news: there has been a raising of the spirits by this Budget, but the bad news is the spirits are motor spirits and the raising is an increase in a tax. So we look at clause 3(1) and what we’ve got is a dollar figure in a column in a table in a section in a schedule of an Act. It’s what Winston Churchill would have described as a riddle wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigma. That’s about how easy it is to understand. The point of this exercise is the kick-off of the Wellbeing Budget, because there is very little, if any, wellbeing to be obtained by it.

Looking at the particular wording in clause 1, I can’t help but notice that the dollar figures are expressed to three decimal places. We’re talking about cents, and a cent is a 100th of a dollar, so why we’ve got an extra little bit there, I suppose, might be the Minister trying to squeeze out every last fraction of a cent from the taxpayer—

💬 Chris Bishop: Squeeze ’em till the pips go.

—indeed, Mr Bishop—and that’s an unfortunate thing indeed. So my question to the Minister is whether he might round off those figures. Maybe round down rather than round up—I’d hate to be the cause of suggesting that he increases his increase still further, but if he can give us some advice on that, that would be very helpful indeed. I hear a colleague, Scott Simpson, musing on the subject of Swedish rounding. I’m not sure, but perhaps if the Government’s acting in the manner of the Swedish Chef, then that would be an appropriate exercise to undertake.

I note that we’ve got a couple of figures there, and one of them is “plus 8c per g of Pb”. I’m just wondering whether there might be something to do with the GST that’s also applied, or perhaps that’s a separate thing. In any case, I’m sure the Minister will be able to answer that. If I’m incorrect in that assumption, and I fear I may be, then perhaps he can put me right on that front.

💬 Brett Hudson: I think you’ll find it’s grams of lead.

I probably don’t need to take the remainder of my time, really, except just to point out that—

💬 Matt King: He was unsure what you were meaning.

Oh, I beg your pardon. I sense that the Minister’s unclear about what I was unclear about, so as I’m roughly half—

Tim van de Molen: Now we’re all unclear.

Tim van de Molen is unclear. And now I’ve forgotten the question. But now, being halfway through my contribution, roughly, I think if I start again, that’s the safest way. So it’s a pleasure to move on and to clarify that my two questions to the Minister were in relation to the expression of the numbers at clause 3(2), which is, for example, 66.524—whether that could be rounded down to 66.52, reflecting that cents in the dollar are hundredths of a dollar. My other question was in relation to GST as distinct from the “plus 8c per g of Pb” as expressed in the wording of Part 1. So I look forward to the Minister’s answers on those points, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very grateful for the call.

💬 Hon Member: He’s front row.

Well, I thought it was time I brought some gravitas to this particular debate. I want to begin with a compliment to the Minister, and that is for the fact—

💬 Hon David Bennett: The silver fox.

No.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order, Mr Bennett. I heard that comment.

I’m tempted, but I shan’t write Mr Bennett’s compliment to the Minister into the Hansard record. The reason I wanted to pay the Minister a compliment was that he did at least take a call a few minutes ago, because quite often in debates of this nature we find that Ministers sit in the chair and refuse to answer the questions. But having thought, “Oh, well, I’ll acknowledge that.”, I have to say how disappointed I was by the quality and the brevity of those answers. I want to put quite a number of extra questions to the Minister. Yes, Mr Twyford, you can look as quizzical as you like, but your answers were both brief and inadequate. For that reason, I have every intention of putting considerably more to you.

The first question relates to the very significant point that was made by my fine colleague the member for Tukituki when he drew the committee’s attention to the fact that there is concern that the impact of these particular excise increases will more than outweigh any benefit that parents of school-age children in New Zealand might enjoy from today’s announcement of the cessation of donations to schools from decile 7 and below. So I would like the Minister, who was doing some calculations a few moments ago, to tell us if Mr Yule is correct and, if so, what the differential would be for the average motorist, particularly in rural areas or provincial areas such as Mr Yule’s electorate, where parents quite often have to drive long distances. The same is true of Mr Falloon’s electorate and those of many of my colleagues around me.

The second thing that I want to ask the Minister is why he is ramming this particular measure through under urgency here in this post-Budget debate when he must be aware of the fact that motorists have experienced huge pain at the pump repeatedly during the period of his Government. The prices per litre, especially here in the Wellington region, and also in the South Island, have risen dramatically under this Government. I’m pleased to say that, as a member for the Waikato, they haven’t been quite as dramatic—in fact, we enjoy some of the lower petrol prices in the country—but I do feel for my colleagues and everybody who resides down in the South Island, who don’t have that particular opportunity to pay slightly lower prices. Why are they being denied the opportunity to put their concerns through a select committee process? Is it really so important that this bill needs to be rushed through under urgency? If the Government was really willing to be upfront about their intent to the New Zealand public, surely they would be prepared to defend their policy at the select committee and to give, perhaps, the opportunity—I think it’s Mr Goldsmith who has an amendment to defer the introduction of this particular measure. If his amendment could be adopted and the measure could be deferred, then we could have a select committee process when the Government would have an opportunity to hear from New Zealanders and to outline their thinking on it.

I also want to ask him what his answer is to the member for Coromandel, Scott Simpson, who I thought made an excellent point when he pointed out that, as the driver of an electric car, he and others who are in that category, many of whom are upper income earners, are not being asked to share the pain that the purpose of this tax is going to impose on the vast majority of motorists. The whole point of the excise, as we read in the explanatory note to the bill, is to provide additional funding to the National Land Transport Fund established under the Land Transport Management Act 2003. So there’s nothing in there about saying that only a certain category of motorists should have to bear the burden. Surely the Minister could explain why he is singling out those who are still driving petrol and diesel-driven cars, fossil-fuelled cars—why are they being singled out under this particular measure? If it was a climate change measure or something, it might be understandable, but it’s not. It is simply another tax grab from a Government that makes a specialty of tax grabs.

I’ll take another call if I can later on, but I also want to ask him whether he will support the amendment in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith, because I do believe it would give us far more time to consider this measure appropriately.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very thoughtful of you, Madam Chair—thank you. Just as a reminder to the committee, the Cricket World Cup starts in about 10 minutes, so I’ll be out of here. I’m going to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, and I’m going to spend my time talking about the insatiable appetite that Governments have to nick money off recreational users. The tragedy of this sort of stuff is, of course, that if you go out and mow your lawns on a Saturday morning, it’s going to cost you more. I think we tend to forget that. In the drive to drive more cars and more trucks and things on the road, we forget the recreational users. Not only people mowing their lawns but those people that go fishing on the weekend are subject to this tax as well. One of the questions I would be really interested in the Minister perhaps addressing is whether, in fact, there’s room for those fishermen to get that money back at some stage, because, when you think about it, whilst they drive their car on the road to tow the boat, they’re paying tax on the car, they’re also paying that same tax on the petrol that’s in the boat, and they have also registered the trailer, of course.

The other issue that was raised a little earlier is a much more serious issue than perhaps either of those, although I’m sure the issues with respect to recreational fisher people is very important to them, and the fact that every time we put these rates up, they get affected pretty badly by it. But I really wanted to go back to the issue that was raised earlier by one of my colleagues, and that’s the road-user charges. Again, we look at these bills and we think excise tax on road fuel, effectively, affects passenger transport. The biggest impact it has, of course, is on goods and services transport, and it’s massive. So this country relies heavily on road transport to get its exports to port and also to get its food and supplies around the country. Those road-user charges are a significant cost on our community. They’re a significant cost on the rural and provincial communities as well, because, of course, those people have to drive a lot further. So these taxes have a much bigger impact on people who live further from the city than perhaps they do on people who live in cities. So the cost to people in rural and provincial New Zealand of the increases in these taxes, and particularly the tax listed in clause 3 of Part 1 of this bill, is significant to those communities. It’s also significant to the farming community because farmers spend a lot of money on transporting stock around the country, particularly at this time of the year, of course, with the dairy cows on the move. But it is a cost on all of our community, and I think that the challenge that we have with the provision of services of this kind will always relate to the way we fund them.

I was around in the days of the debate on the hypothecated funding of land transport, and I think that was probably in the term of the last Labour Government, actually, when that was brought in. Of course, in those days, that was hypothecated, basically, to fix roads. That’s changed dramatically now, and we have a Government that’s using these taxes for all sorts of other reasons and, effectively, taxing a sector of the community to prop up—well, not to prop up but to provide—public transport in some areas of New Zealand. Many of us live in parts of New Zealand that have no access to public transport and, consequently, have no opportunity to use or get the benefits of the tax that we pay in the form of these excise taxes. So it’s quite a significant inequality, I think, in the way we apply these taxes, and as my colleague Mr Simpson talked about, driving those strange electric things, they are subsidised by all of us, and I think that’s grossly unfair as well.

So there’s some interesting anomalies creeping into the way we’ve historically taxed or put excise tax on fuel to, effectively, fund these issues, and there’s going to have to be other ways found to fund these things in the future. I guess if they all turn into Scott Simpsons and all drive those very expensive electric cars, then we’re going to have to probably, I guess—short of us having to use the fuel to power the power stations to power the cars, we’re going to be in trouble.

I don’t want to take any more time in this debate, but I think we do need to consider—and I feel sorry for—those recreational users who either mow their lawns on a Saturday or go fishing or whatever. They are the ones that suffer the most as a result of this type of tax. So it certainly has an impact. Thank you, Madam Chair, for letting me take a call on that bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I’ll try to address the questions that I think are in scope. Christopher Penk had a couple of points to make, and one of them was about whether or not the amount being charged in clause 3(2), and in a similar situation in Part 2, where it’s, basically, to three decimal points—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! I apologise to the Minister. Members have asked the Minister questions; I think they should actually listen to the answers.

So I want to reassure Christopher Penk that the fact that the number is expressed to three decimal points is not a problem, because these amounts are charged to fuel companies that are processing millions of litres. So it’s not like Joe Bloggs is going to rock up at the service station and be charged 63.024c per litre on his credit card.

The other question that Christopher Penk had, I think, was about where it says “plus 8c per g of Pb”. That’s not a form of GST; that’s actually a longstanding provision in the fuel excise which is designed to be a disincentive for the insertion of lead into petrol, but it’s there as an artefact of history.

Brett Hudson’s got an amendment that would delete clause 5. We will not be adopting that, because, obviously, it would contradict the entire intent of the bill and lead to a substantial loss of revenue. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. It’s a real pleasure to talk alongside this copious amount of male charm beside me. Thank you very much for choosing a female option here tonight, Madam Chair. I will of course be speaking to, in Part 1, clause 3(2), which is the mechanism for adding—they quite liked that, didn’t they? Still getting a bit of feedback.

I would like to refer to some of the statements in the impact summary by the Ministry of Transport, which, of course, we traversed last year in June when it was given to us alongside the impact statement for the regional fuel tax for Auckland. Now, I realise that we’re on this particular excise duty tonight, but back then it was very clearly stated that for this particular—and it was signalling what we’re doing here tonight, that the objectives of this mechanism would be that additional cost should be reasonable for users, and that’s a direct quote from the impact statement: “additional cost should be reasonable for users.” So, if we keep that in mind, I’ve got some questions for the Minister, questions which definitely, for me, raise red flags—red being the optimum colour there.

It’s around the section of the impact statement where it was referring to constraints on the scope for decision making. It reads there that “The existence of the [regional fuel tax] in Auckland”—and I’m going to get to tonight’s topic, don’t worry—“constrains the ability of the Government to increase [the petrol excise duty] and [the road user charge] rates as further rate increases across the country will place an additional burden on businesses and individuals [and in this case] in the Auckland region.” So there we are. There it is from the Ministry of Transport, and that’s the impact statement which relates to tonight’s bill. So how does the Minister reconcile this—that’s my question—when, clearly, the constraint for the decision making which has led to tonight’s bill is there in black and white for all to see?

Furthermore—and it’s referring to the Government policy statement in 2018 but it applies to tonight—“Cabinet agreed that the Minister of Transport would report back to the Cabinet Economic Development Committee on increases to [the petrol excise duty] of between 3-4 cents per litre per year for the next three years”—and, of course, that’s, again, what we’re doing tonight—and “This constrains the magnitude of increases that can be realistically considered.” So there it is again: the very fact that they are having to review it and look at this charge should be a constraint for increases. How has the Minister taken that into account?

Another question for the Minister would be that, when looking at alternative funding mechanisms, back in the impact statement, scaling back expenditure was one of them. Did the Minister take that into consideration when coming up with this particular bill?

Now, my last comment around that impact statement would be one more statement where it was said that the provision of greater transport choices would benefit low-income households. Now, you might take that at face value, but I’ve got a question for the Minister: where are the greater transport choices that were mentioned and heralded? Where is the light rail option? Where is the East-West Link option? Where is the City Rail Link, on time and on budget? Where are the greater transport options, Mr Minister? We’d like to know. Because I’ve talked about the impact on income of businesses and residents, there’s also very much a repetitive strand, and that’s with regards to the impact on low-income households.

I would like to finish—and I will be taking a further call if I don’t get to finish—with this particular quote that I want to read. They were submitters, the Auckland Action Against Poverty group. So I want to read just two short quotes from them. One is “Auckland Action Against Poverty … calling on the Labour led Government to find alternatives to its proposed petrol tax in order to fund its transport projects.”—this is a quote that I’m reading. Madam Chair, can I take a further call, please? [Time expired]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take my first call on Budget legislation tonight—

💬 Chris Bishop: First of many.

—first of many; exactly right, Mr Bishop—and specifically the committee stage of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, which is obviously quite a mouthful, but it’s here tonight in the name of Minister Phil Twyford. If anyone at home is confused a little bit about why we’re still debating this several hours after the Budget, it’s because we’re passing through all stages tonight. The reason that’s important is because we’re now looking at the committee stage, and because we’ve been denied the opportunity to have a select committee, this is a very important stage in the process where all members can contribute, test the Minister, and put questions to him—which I’ll be doing in just a moment.

My first question to the Minister—just coming to Part 1, which talks about an increase in the excise from 63.024c to 66.524c; for the mathematicians in the room, obviously that’s a 3.5c increase—is: where is that money exactly going to go? It’s difficult for us on this side of the House to determine whether or not we’re going to support or oppose this measure if we don’t know where the money is going to go, because, for me at least, if I knew that money was going to be going fairly to regional New Zealand—if that 3.5c was going to be spent in the regions that it’s needed—then it might be something that we might look at supporting.

The answer, for me, has got to be roads. It’s got to be roads, and when you look at what the Government’s done with the National Land Transport Fund, they’ve taken $5 billion out of the State highway network and put it into Auckland rail and cycle projects. So if this 3.5c increase in the excise is simply going to go into more of those projects, clearly that’s not something that we’re going to support.

Now, Deborah Russell, in the previous stage, the second reading, said—she thundered, in fact—“Your region will not be worse off.” Well, actually, Deborah Russell, my region is worse off, because that’s a Government that has, as part of that $5 billion, cancelled four lanes between Ashburton and Christchurch.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! We’re straying a little past the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just coming to my second question to the Minister, actually. It’s been raised previously in the debate that this is a regressive tax—3.5c on the poorest people, who live often on the outskirts of town. So it’s regressive on lower-income New Zealanders, but I would also argue that it’s regressive on people in regional and rural areas. The reason for that is that if this money is going to be going to fund public transport in places like Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and, of course, in David Bennett’s area of Hamilton, that’s—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Excuse me?

—fine for them—and Mr Macindoe’s, of course. That’s fine for them, actually, but it’s going to be people in places like Ashburton and Timaru who will pay for that.

In his earlier contribution, Mr Twyford said that, no, it’s not regressive, because we have a poor public transport system and so we need to put more money into that. Well, my question to the Minister on that is: what viable public transport link does he think is viable in a place like Ashburton? Does he think it’s from Allenton shops into town, or from Tinwald across the river into Ashburton? If he wants to put this 3.5c excise into more public transport, what does that mean for a place like Ashburton?

I do want to come to the departmental disclosure statement, because this actually referred a little bit to this regressive nature. It talks about the fact that petrol excise duty and RUC—road-user charges—are the major contributors of revenue to the National Land Transport Fund, which funds the delivery of the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport. So that points out, actually, that the vast bulk of the money comes from road-user charges and from petrol taxes. So it’s money that’s coming from motorists, from road-users, and going into public transport when they’ve taken $5 billion out of the State highway network.

My final point and my final question to the Minister is in relation to aviation—and this is a point that hasn’t been raised yet. I know Mr Eagle, on the other side, is very proud of the fact that his electorate has got two airports in it. Well, mine has three. The smallest of those is at Rangitata Island, and that’s a real favourite of aviation enthusiasts. The owner of that airport has asked me several times, and I’ve put it to the Minister as well, about a carve-out or an exemption for recreational aviation enthusiasts who go and purchase petrol to fill up their planes and then fly around. Clearly they’re not using the roads. So my question to the Minister—when he replied to me last time, he was talking about the fact that there’s a review under way—is: what is the stage of that review, and if it’s not coming out soon, will he consider a carve-out?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We have a difficult position in the committee at this stage of the evening now, and I wanted to do the point of order before we got too further on, because I need the Minister’s full attention at this moment in time for something that’s happened in the Chamber in the last half an hour with his explanations.

We had put up a number for the cost of the fuel tax, and it would be $260 for the cost over the year. Now, the Minister refuted that in his comments and used a different figure. I’m referring to the figure here—and I quote—that the 3.5c tax, 4c with GST, according to figures would be $2.50 a week, and $2.50 a week gives $130 a year for the first part of the tax, and if you double that, you get $260.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): So are you suggesting that the Minister is needing to correct something?

The Minister needs to—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I just want to get to the point of the point of order.

Well, the Minister needs to come back and reply with the figures that are correct, because I am quoting from the Minister on 1 October on his last increase in taxes, and if you look at this article—“Transport Minister reveals the impact of new fuel taxes”, and that comes to $260. And now, today—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member.

—he’s coming at a much lower figure.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think we’ve got the gist of where we’re going.

So the Minister needs to clarify—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yeah, I think we’ve got the gist of where we’re going with it. Thank you.

—and I want to give him a chance to do that before he leaves the Chamber tonight.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member. Right, I think we’ve got the gist of where you’re going with this point of order. Now, I think we need to actually check what was said in the Hansard, and I don’t know if the Minister himself recalls what was exactly said, but I’m sure the Minister will return to the House and make the correction if it is so needed.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister clearly wrote down the numbers when he replied to me, and so he will have them there in front of him now.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you—thank you. I thank the member. I will leave that in the hands of the Minister to make any correction that is required.

I move, That the question be now put.

I think there’s sufficient interest in the debate continuing.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity—and for looking right through my colleague Tim van de Molen—to take a call on the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Sports) Amendment Bill. I’d like to just start by reflecting a comment—

💬 Hon Member: Not “Motor Sports”—“Motor Spirits”.

—which many—spirits? Well, we’ve talked about motor spirits and motor sports, and we’ve talked about aviation sports, and they’re all getting pretty much a fail out of this piece of legislation that we’re putting through. It’s an interesting time here in this Parliament, when we’ve just seen the first wellbeing Budget, to be spending our first bill talking about tax—increased taxes, and increased taxes on motorists.

I’d like to ask the Minister a number of questions in relation to some of the comments that he’s made tonight, and also then some questions in relation to how this will impact on my electorate of Pakuranga. Firstly, the Minister stood up and said in relation to a question, which was, “Why is this being brought back from 1 October to 1 July and how much is that going to raise additionally?” that it would raise an additional $30 million and that the purpose of that was to synchronise the budgets. Now, I’d like to ask the Minister what that synchronisation actually means, because, on this side of the Chamber, what we see is a $30 million increase in taxes on hard-working New Zealanders and another $30 million next year, and we do not understand what this synchronisation actually means.

I’ve heard all the members on this side of the Chamber talking about different projects, and I’m not going to get into different projects, but what other projects is this synchronising for? We have a right to know what this money is actually going towards. Thirty million dollars is a substantial amount of money that taxpayers will be having for fork out for this Government’s so-called synchronisation. Or is this something like a reset, which the Minister has also recently announced in another portfolio?

The second question I’d like to ask relates to my electorate of Pakuranga, and that is in relation to where this money will be going to, and not in relation to any particular project, but the fact is that in my electorate we have been asked by this Government, and forced by this Government, to continue to pay more and more and more excise tax. In Auckland, we’re paying the regional fuel tax of 11.5c per litre. Last year, we had to pay a 4c increase in our tax on petrol levies, and now we’re paying another 4c. The question I’d like to ask is: how many more times will this Minister be coming down to the House and forcing people in my electorate to continue to have to pay more petrol tax and still have uncertainty over the projects and what it’s going to be delivering in Auckland?

This is not an unsubstantial amount of money. This is something that will cost the people of my electorate, who work hard, pay their taxes, and go around Auckland in their cars. The majority of them—90 percent of people in my electorate—have to use their cars to go to work. That’s a fact. The Minister can talk about all the things that the Government’s trying to do around public transport etc., etc., but 90 percent of the people in my electorate have no other option but to use their cars to go to work. That means they have no other choice but to continue to pay this petrol tax and petrol levy.

The Minister might talk about all the different things that are happening in Auckland but the reality in Auckland is that the people in my electorate don’t all just go into the city. They travel all across Auckland to go to their place of employment. The CBD is one of the places they go to for their place of employment but there are many other places where we do not have the public transport options or other options; so the only option that people in my electorate have is to pay this additional petrol tax. The question I ask is: how many more times are we going to have to continue to pay additional excise levies when we fill up our cars in order for this Minister to continue to try and fulfil the promises? If we’re going to see more synchronisations and more resets and all of the rest, how many more petrol taxes is this Minister and this Government going to force on motorists in Auckland?

I want to just respond briefly to some questions that Denise Lee posed in her contributions. The first was whether or not we’ve taken into account something that was set out in the impact summary about the existence of the regional fuel tax of Auckland constraining the ability of the Government to increase petrol excise duty across the rest of the country, and the answer is of course we did consider those things. The question of the burden on people paying the excise was carefully considered and weighed up against the gains that would be generated through additional revenue being brought on stream for the country’s transport system. So the answer is yes to that.

Denise Lee asked, further to that, whether we considered reducing expenditure, which was one of the options that was set out in the impact summary. The answer to that is, no, we didn’t consider reducing expenditure, simply because the country has a substantial infrastructure deficit and we desperately need to invest in a modern transport system for New Zealand.

Ms Lee also asked: where are the greater choices that were referenced in that document that are necessary in order to provide people with alternatives to driving and to paying this tax? The answer in Auckland, which is the case that was cited, is that the City Rail Link, which is on the way to completion over the next four years or so, will double the carrying capacity of the entire rail network in Auckland, and that will mean that there will be trains running as frequently as every few minutes in dozens of town centres across the city.

The extra revenue generated by the changes in this bill will contribute to the National Land Transport Programme, which has already seen more than a 50 percent increase in spending on public transport right across New Zealand, an extra billion dollars on public transport systems in this three-year period, and also more than a 50 percent increase in walking and cycling infrastructure all over New Zealand, responding to huge demand in our communities for genuine alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. I believe those were the only questions that are in scope.

Magnificent choice, Madam Chair. It’s wonderful to be able to join the thoroughly robust questioning that has been happening from this side of the House in relation to the committee stage of this bill. Now, we’d heard from Mr Goldsmith, around the timing, his amendment looking to bring that timing earlier, because it was a bit of a sneaky move to impose a “weasel tax”, as it were.

I think a “weasel tax” is an appropriate term. I see Mr McAnulty looking quizzically at that term. Perhaps he’s confused about what a weasel is. Well, I can assure him the weasel is “weasonably” small whereas the stoat is “stoatally” different. But, if he prefers, I can refer to it by the family name of mustelids if that helps him at any point in this debate.

Now, the first question I had for the Minister of Transport this evening was in relation to an answer he gave earlier in regards to Mr Penk’s question about the additional terms under Part 1, clause 3(2), the plus 8c per gram of lead—or plumbum, the Latin term it’s derived from. I think the atomic number’s 82 for lead, off the top of my head. The question there is whether or not that term is relevant, and he suggested it was perhaps a somewhat outdated term given—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Historic artefact.

A historic artefact. Thank you, Mr Goldsmith. And perhaps that’s how the Minister might like to be remembered in time. But I wonder why, and the question for the Minister is: why haven’t we taken this opportunity, whilst we’re bringing this change in, to actually tidy that up and to remove that term if it’s no longer necessary—in particular because, given under the next clause, Part 1, clause 4(2), it talks about the refund rates and those being a single figure in terms of cents? So why, on the one hand, are we talking about a figure with three decimal places plus 8c per gram of lead but, in the refund option, we have no mention about minus X number of cents per gram of lead; we simply talk about a straight cent figure. So is there a reason why that differentiation exists and why it wasn’t able to be tidied up in this consideration of the changes we’re making to these excise duties at this point in time? I would have thought that would be an appropriate time to tidy that up.

A couple of other aspects I just wanted to touch on were around the timing again and the impact that has around the additional revenue. I’d touched earlier, in the second reading, on my intent to mention this during the committee stage around the regions missing out. We’ve heard a little bit about that on some of the South Island and other North Island regions as well. In the Waikato in particular, we had the Waikato Expressway projects planned. They were in the pipeline ready to go—previous Government continuing a safety focus there. This Government withdrew that as a result of changes to the Government policy statement. We heard then that the focus was around safety rather than expressways. Well, of course, that was a contradiction, because expressways are very safe. That particular project in the Waikato going from near Cambridge down to Piarere was bypassing two very dangerous intersections with high crash rates.

So my question in relation to that was: are we going to see additional benefit in that region for those sorts of projects, given his increased safety focus as expressed in the Government policy statement? Specifically, in relation to the timing that Mr Goldsmith’s amendment addressed, the Minister ruled it would not be supported by the Government, because of the significant revenue that would be lost with that three-month change. Well, my question then is: if we are pulling it forward three months and we’re gaining an additional $30 million of revenue under this in the first year and, indeed, another $30 million in the second year—that’s $60 million of additional revenue—would he now reconsider that Cambridge to Piarere expressway, given that $60 million would be a significant part of the total build project for that particular project? So I’d like to hear from the Minister whether he will now reconsider carrying out that project, given the significant safety benefits it brings to the region as well, given his additional revenue he is sourcing under this “weasel tax”, as it were.

The other aspect I wanted to know was with the safety focus again. Now, I wrote to the Minister recently about my concerns on safety and the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA’s) inability to deliver on time frames with committed projects in the Waikato region. So my question here is: does he expect that, with a significant additional tax grab, NZTA will be able to meet all future obligations that they have committed to in regards to safety projects under his watch as Minister? Those are the key questions that I have for the Minister, and I would appreciate his response to those.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I accept absolutely that it is entirely at your discretion as to when a closure motion is accepted. However, I point out to you that while the member Mark Patterson was moving his closure motion, my colleague Tim van de Molen sought to raise a point of order with you. He did that before you had indicated that you were accepting the closure motion. I was actually going to raise a point of order as well. It may well have been for the same reason, but Mr van de Molen beat me to it. So my point of order is to ask you why a point of order would not be accepted before you came to a point of ruling on a closure motion which was being moved at the time that Mr van de Molen sought to take his point of order.

I thank the member for the point of order. All I can say is that it was a matter of timing. I didn’t hear Mr van de Molen’s point of order until after I had actually accepted the closure motion. It may be that he was—because, within the fullness of the seeking of calls, members stand up and seek the call when closures are given, and I didn’t actually hear the point of order, and I accepted the closure motion.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The question then for me became a matter of timing, because, as per the Speaker’s Rulings, any call can be taken before the completion of the words are used to put the question, and I thought the eye contact of your acknowledgment was after you had started putting the question but had not actually completed putting the question. Therefore, my call still should have been able to be sought during that point.

Actually, I was putting the question. I was putting the question. So, in my view, I have accepted the closure motion. I am putting the question.

Madam Chair, can you confirm, then, that you’re making a new Speaker’s ruling that overrules the previous one that says a call can be taken before the final word of putting the question is made?

Speaking to the point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK, I’ll accept that.

Madam Chair, this issue to me seems very clear: Mr Macindoe’s point of order started with “I accept that it is entirely your discretion”—that’s where the matter should have finished, in my view.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Well, we will take one more and then that will be it; I will rule.

I think Mr McAnulty is being disingenuous with that. Had we had the opportunity—or, at least, had I had the opportunity—to raise the point of order that I was going to put, it was going to be that Mr Patterson had not used the correct wording for a closure motion. So, while I absolutely accept that you have made your ruling, and I don’t wish to ask you to go back on it—that would be totally inappropriate—nevertheless, I do point out to the committee that the closure motion was not moved in the correct terminology and, therefore, had you had an opportunity to rule on the point of order, you might well have reached a different conclusion.

I thank the member. And just for clarity’s sake, for the benefit of the committee, we keep very detailed notes of who is taking calls, the relevance of those calls when questions are being asked, in terms of being in a position to accept a closure. So I’m fully satisfied that I’ve taken sufficient debate on Part 1 of this bill. I am now seeking calls on Part 2.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have been in this Chamber on a previous occasion when a member was asked to leave the Chamber by the Speaker for failing to meet the expected dress standard of the House. I would suggest to you that Mr Patterson’s dress tonight is of the same poor standard and should not have been permitted for the considerable period of time he’s been in the Chamber.

I’m sorry; I can’t see Mr Patterson.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The rules are very clear, Madam Chair, that members in this House are expected to wear business attire. It would seem to me that, in the spirit of filibustering, we are seeing some pretty poor choices—

OK, thank you. No, that’s it—that’s it. We’re not taking any more. We are either going to move on to the debate on Part 2—it is starting to move into areas of disorder—or we are not going to. We are going to continue with Part 2? Is that what the members wish?

Part 2 Amendments to take effect on 1 July 2019