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

As I was saying earlier today when we were discussing this part, there are two key points that I wanted to raise. Just to conclude the first point, I really want to understand from the Minister of Transport what the modelling suggests around demand elasticity, with respect to how much more does he think he can continue to load up excise duty before there is a commensurate reduction in demand. There must be modelling around that. It’s very important, I think, for us to see that, because this is not an inconsequential jump. We’ve moved from 63c, of course, in Part 2; it is going up to 70c plus GST.

The other area that I would be very interested for the Minister to explore for us is the interplay between this excise duty and the signal it sends, and the revenue it makes through that process, and the emissions trading scheme (ETS) framework, and, in particular, the fact that our carbon price drives a signal of around 6c to 7c in terms of impost on our community, but this excise duty is now 10 times more than that. I just want to get a sense from the Minister, again, in terms of his assessment of how this may change into the future. Climate change is, as is signalled, such a material issue for this Government, yet you have a price signal baked in through the carbon price of 7c a litre, yet you have, as planned here in Part 2, an excise duty of 70c. There is quite a contrast in terms of where this Government puts their priority. I actually think there is quite a dissonance between this prioritising of using this as a tax grab for the Government, as opposed to the language they use around the importance of ensuring that the ETS and the carbon price and signal is effectively sheeted through the economy.

So I want a real understanding of how he sees those interplaying as we go through. Look, I’ve got many more points I’d like to make on this debate; I appreciate there are others here who’d like to make a contribution, so I look forward to making a comment later.

This part of the bill deals with the actual amounts that are being—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ve got high expectations; this will be good.

Sorry, there’s the Leader of the House over there. I did not know—there’s been an overnight reshuffle, and there he is sitting in his new seat on the second row, bounced off the front bench. The Hon Chris Hipkins, one of the best performing Ministers—no, that’s not true; one of better—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Let’s come back to the matter at hand, thank you.

Well, I was simply responding to the cruel interjection that came on my contribution.

This is the part of the bill that deals with the actual numbers of cents increased on a litre of motor fuel. I think the general public—the motoring public, certainly—accepted, through a number of years of increases in excise, that there was a big roading programme in place for New Zealand. I don’t know if anybody who is a regular motorist, who regularly uses roads, would now say that that very big programme, funded largely through motor vehicle excise, was a bad thing. Most people look at those extensions of motorways, those improvements to roads, and they see it as a positive thing. So they don’t mind paying excise at a reasonable level. But here we have a Budget item for an increase in excise when the Budget itself shows no new roads being built in New Zealand, and no particular expenditure over and above normal going on roading. So what we have is the motorists of New Zealand paying an extra 7c a litre over the next two years so that the Government can advance its programme for rail, and for light rail, and for all sorts of other bits and pieces around the place.

They have not been upfront enough—well, the Minister of Transport hasn’t—to say, actually, this is to discourage people from using motor vehicles. This is designed to get people on to bicycles, and on to their feet, and into public transport—and to put up with the sort of reliability issues that we’ve seen here in Wellington, and that we see in all sorts of other parts of the country—because the use of the motor vehicle is going to become so expensive. That’s unreasonable. So I intend, shortly, to put a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on the Table of the House to ensure that the public do know how much is being collected in excise and other Government charges on every litre of motor fuel. That SOP is going to ask that the IRD supply to all sales outlets for motor fuels an A3-sized, fully framed, easily installed statement of just how much excise is being taken by the Government, so it can be seen, for example, that today’s 3.5c for 1 July this year, and the 3.5c for next year, same date, and turning up to 7c, is just the start, because there’s a little bit of GST on top of that as well.

I think people need to understand and get a little bit more demanding of the current Government about the quality of roads that are available in New Zealand and some of the improvements that are needed, as well as some of the big extensions of motorways that are required around the country.

There is a suggestion that “Well, people will be, actually, quite pleased that we’re going to get people out of motor vehicles and get them into public transport and on their bicycles, and even the e-scooters for that matter.”, although, of course, watch out there; I suspect regulation is coming—we’ll just see how the Government responds to a proposal that’s currently before them at the moment.

The SOP is not intended to be an encumbrance upon those who are retailers of, or wholesalers of, motor spirits. It is intended to be information so that the public will know that when they are paying their $2.50 for a litre of motor fuel—in this case, petrol—about half of that belongs to the fuel supplier but a big huge chunk of it belongs to the Government, and a smaller chunk, actually, is in the distribution and sales of the motor fuel itself. I can’t see why that would be a bad thing. I think in the spirit of openness and transparency, making sure that people can see what the Government’s up to—this would be a perfectly reasonable thing for the House to accept. I look forward to it being well supported by the Minister when it’s on the Table shortly.

I move, That the question be now put.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I did want to delve a little bit deeper into the nature of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is going to be forthcoming from Gerry Brownlee, and in relation—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! We will debate that further once the SOP is tabled. The member tabling it can refer to it, but, however, we cannot debate it until we actually see the SOP so that we can see the content of it.

And that’s an excellent point, Madam Chair, so we’ll wait for the arrival of that SOP. But in the meantime, Part 2, that we’re discussing here today, is in relation to the amendment taking effect on 1 July 2020 for what will be the third—the third—of the successive increases in the motor fuel spirits levy. So that will bring the total to 10.5c extra a litre that motorists would be paying under this Government—

💬 Brett Hudson: Plus GST.

—plus the GST, which takes it nearly to, well, about 12.5c a litre extra that Kiwis are paying—and so, you know, that’s not insignificant when the price of petrol, of course, as we all know, fluctuates enormously in terms of the crude price of petrol. Everybody understands that, but what they also understand is that the one thing that doesn’t fluctuate—it only ever goes in one direction—is the extra amount of tax that’s collected. We’ve had quite a number of speeches talking about elements of the fairness and wisdom of continuing to collect more and more fuel taxes and yet not delivering anything more in terms of roading infrastructure to growing cities and growing parts of the country, and increased congestion on the roads. Indeed, that fuel tax, as Gerry Brownlee said, under the Government policy statement is dedicated to encourage people to get out of their cars. So people are paying more tax at the petrol pump to go into their cars to encourage them to get out of their cars. Most people would probably find that a little bit strange and confusing.

The other element is, of course, further discussion about where exactly the burden of this taxation falls. The point I was making yesterday—and it’s equally relevant to Part 2 of this bill—is that, while the person at the petrol pump feels the pain and pays the extra taxes and wonders where that is going, it’s the impact of that cumulative 12.5c a litre of petrol on everything that moves that adds to the cost of living. It’s not just filling up your car that costs more; it’s actually buying a litre of ice cream, getting your bread and milk from the supermarket, buying a new shirt, buying a new TV, buying your new fridge—anything that is transported anywhere. Probably the only thing that’s not affected by it is your Netflix subscription or services that are delivered electronically. Yes, you’ll be free from this, probably, but for anything that is moved around the city and transported—ultimately, the costs of that transport flow through to every part of the economy. That’s why any Government that does this over time has to be absolutely strong in their clear arguments that the revenue that is being raised is actually going to be used to improve the lives of the people paying that tax.

Anybody in Auckland can see the incredible improvement that the Waterview tunnel, for example, made to the movement of traffic in Auckland City. Anybody in the Waikato can see the incredible improvement that will come from the Waikato Expressway. What we’re struggling with today is that the increases have increased in tempo. The previous Government referred to petrol tax increases in the previous Government over nine years. They were over a very extended period of time, and very much focused on funding very clear projects, and it’s been replaced by a substantial quickening of that increase under this Government—12.5c in three years, including GST—and, at the same time, an abandonment of any obvious and clear roading transport projects in order to make a difference to the lives of New Zealanders. That, I think, is where they’re going to come unstuck over the next few years.

Todd Muller raised the question of demand modelling, and I want to direct him to page 11 of the regulatory impact statement, which cites Kennedy and Wallace 2007, “Impacts of fuel price changes on New Zealand transport”, and it notes that demand for petrol is relatively inelastic. Their modelling says a 10 percent rise in the price of petrol—which, obviously, is way in excess of what we’re talking about here—would affect petrol consumption: consumption would decrease by 1.5 percent in the first year, and 2 percent after two years. So that is the modelling information that we have, which indicates there is a level of inelasticity in demand for petrol. He also raised questions about the carbon price, but this is not a debate about other transport policies like the carbon price. Similarly, Mr Goldsmith raises questions about the flow-on impact of excise to the wider economy, and I don’t believe that’s part of this committee stage debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a couple of things I’d like to talk to on this. The first is this issue I’ve raised, on three occasions, around the regressive nature of this duty. It is noted in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), actually, the impact of this duty on lower-income and vulnerable people and families. It’s interesting, the calculations that the Minister of Transport uses, and, in fact, the report refers to the cost of it. Normally, transport costs for low-income families are anywhere between 6 to 8 percent of their total budget. So here we are, we’ve got a Government imposing yet another high level of duty—another 3.5c plus GST—on top of the already proposed changes in their earlier years and, of course, for the year coming to fruition. That, together with the Auckland regional tax, is, as we know, very, very substantial.

I just wanted to know—and this is a good opportunity for the Minister to talk about it—the financial implications of that. I know he talks about it being only a few cents, but actually in some of the modelling in some of the estimates we received when we were looking at this issue in the committee, it was quite significant—in fact, some were up to a thousand dollars that would be the impact around some of the increased charges that road users are going to incur over the course of all these different arrangements that this Government has brought in, even though it campaigned on the fact it wasn’t going to bring in new taxes.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! We are starting to stray a little bit.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is that I think this raises a whole wider issue around this excise tax, because the issue is that I think the Government needs to be clear about what its future intentions are. It’s fine to bring in an Auckland regional fuel tax and these three excise duties of 3.5c, but I think it’s absolutely imperative that people should know what the future intention of this Government is around introducing further excise taxes, because, as we all know—in fact, in the RIS, again, it refers to the issue around the alternative funding mechanisms that the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Government have in terms of trying to bring in different money to meet its Government policy statement targets, but I think there’s a requirement that says, “Does the Government intend, if it is lucky enough to win the next election, to bring in further increases in the excise tax?” In fact, there are road-user charges (RUC) questions. So I think it’s fine just doing this in a piecemeal fashion but, actually, the public of New Zealand have a right to hear from the Government actually what it is in terms of future funding and the future increase in this petrol excise duty.

The other thing is that the Ministry of Transport obviously uses a cost allocation model to work through some of the charges, and it notes that the RUC is always overcharged. There’s an over-receipt or collection of taxes from road-user charges, and that’s a perennial problem. It’s noted in the RIS again. As it says quite clearly here, “The actual RUC rates set in regulations are generally higher than the base rates because a level of over-recovery from the system”—they talk about the need to fund additional investments. What I’d like to hear from the Minister is that some of the submitters during this process on the excise tax suggested alternative options to increasing the petrol excise duties and the RUC, such as congestion pricing and tolling. And, again, I think this needs to be in the context of where you’ve got a Government who’s imposed, roughly, another 20c in a short order within 19 months of coming into office. Effectively, the public of New Zealand, and particularly in Auckland, will be subject to an over 20c per litre charge that has been introduced by this rapacious, tax-gathering Government since the time they’ve come into play. I think it’s time now for the Minister to be absolutely clear about his future intentions regarding these two forms of further tax that he wishes to impose on the New Zealand public.

Before I call the next member—if members would just resume their seats—I just want to remind members that this is a very narrow debate. We are on Part 2 of it, which, actually, the amendments that take effect from 1 July 2020—it’s very, very narrow. I’ve allowed 20 minutes of quite wide-ranging debate; we need to come back to these two clauses, 5 and 6. We had quite a significant amount of debate yesterday on the broader issues. I do not want to be sitting members down due to repetition, repeated arguments, so let’s try and concentrate on these two clauses, which, really, are just about the date and the amendments that take effect from 1 July 2020.

Just in response to Mr Brownlee’s Supplementary Order Paper, which would require—

No, no, not yet. We’re not—not yet.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Oh, really? Oh, OK.

Thank you very much, Madam—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have given the amendment to the Clerk. At what point does it become tabled?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s actually not part of Part 2 debate.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not what, sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s not part of the Part 2 debate—it is not part of the Part 2 debate. We may come to that, but not just at this point.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can I take it back and make it Part 3?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Ha! Not just yet. We are just working on how this will impact on the debate going forward, so—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, no—sorry, I’m seeking genuine guidance. I think what I’ve said is a relevant point. It’s simply—you have a bill that sets out all this stuff. I’m saying why can’t that be displayed by the outlets? So do I need to write another part to the bill to be able to get that idea considered by the House?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m yet to determine whether this is within the scope of the bill.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it would be good to know that before the committee stage finishes—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, and you will.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: —so that a new part can be entered. I’d only need to write “new Part 3” on the piece of paper, I believe.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member. You will know shortly. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to talk briefly about the effects of the increase in excise on petrol, but particularly relating to rural New Zealand. Rural New Zealand is where people have to, by the nature of where they live, travel further than a commuter who might live in Wellington. Although the Prime Minister has ruled out increases in regional fuel taxes on her watch, it’s disappointing that this increase across the entire country has been initiated in this Budget. If the Prime Minister was true to her word to say there was going to be no regional fuel tax increases, then why is this here? Why are we even talking about it here today? This is a regional fuel tax across all regions in New Zealand.

Getting back to rural New Zealand, this affects those people in rural communities who are generally on lower incomes. We know that the high-income electorates, if you want to call them that, for example—for the sake of argument—are in the cities and the poorer electorates are in the rural communities. I say that because the poorer people drive less efficient cars, older cars. They burn more fuel per kilometre than someone who’s in a new car. As the Minister of Transport quite rightly says, the demand for fuel is inelastic, so, in a way, no matter what the price does, people will continue to consume the same amount of fuel. There is no choice of public transport in rural New Zealand. People have to get into their cars to go from A to B, and because of the inelasticity in demand for fuel, it is, essentially, a universal tax. Everyone will pay the same amount per litre per person, and so it hits the lower-income people, as described by Mr Bayly earlier—it hits them harder. It has a greater effect on them—more than those who have higher incomes.

This Government says they are all about supporting those who are less well-off. Well, this is a regressive tax. This tax hits rural New Zealanders harder, hits lower-income people harder, hits those who are on lower incomes harder, and hits those people who have to travel to rugby practice. People in my electorate, they travel for 40 minutes to go to rugby practice, to netball practice, and back. We’ve just had a boarding house closed in Wairarapa College. The Wairarapa College boarding house has just closed, and what is that going to mean? It’s going to mean people will have to travel more to go in and out, from home to Masterton, to get their kids to school, because the boarding school has closed. So people in rural New Zealand will be affected to a greater extent than any other city electorate because of the distances and the requirement to use petrol.

People in Wellington have an option. They can jump on a bus; they can walk or cycle, but I tell you what: you don’t want to be cycling on some of the bumpy roads around—and that’s the other thing: we collect this money from those people who drive more than the city folk, and where does the money go? It goes to Auckland. It doesn’t go to rural New Zealand. The Te Marua to Masterton review continues. There’s an incredible number of upgrades that should be for the safety—and that’s what the Government talks about—of our commuters—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to the bill at hand. I have cautioned members on repetition. Thank you.

The point, Madam Chair, is—yes, I take your point. My point there is that this increase in excise is going to affect the rural people much more than the city folk, and that’s why it is a very poor show from the Prime Minister when she says no more regional fuel taxes, and here today we are talking about a regional fuel tax.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s quite remarkable—I will be talking to my amendment here in Part 2—that it’s still day one, actually, of the Budget. We’re still on Thursday, and the very first legislative action of this Government in the world’s first wellbeing Budget was to make people worse off in 2019. That was Part 1, a 4c a litre impost on people to make them worse off—first action.

Well, that wasn’t enough for this Government. It wasn’t enough to make people worse off this year; they are determined under Part 2 to make sure that New Zealanders are going to be worse off next year as well. They’re going to slap them with another 4c a litre just to make sure that they can’t get ahead, because, clearly, under this Government, people getting ahead is not what they are about, and, quite frankly, that is just terrible. Of course, it harms most those people which the members of the Government, their party, have always purported to represent. It harms lower-income New Zealanders more. It’s a regressive tax. It is the nature of the tax.

I’ll just make the point that I recognise the advisers who are in the Chamber for this debate. They have appeared before the Governance and Administration Committee. They are very good, hard-working, and diligent people. To hear the Minister of Transport somehow undermine or dismiss the comments they have provided in free and frank advice about the regressive nature of this tax I think is unreasonable, and the Minister should have a bit more respect for the work officials do. Certainly, we do in select committees, and they deserve it in this committee of the whole House as well, particularly because, of course, this legislation never saw the light of a select committee day.

Just before I move on to my actual amendment and what it will do, during the course of this debate on this bill, the wide-ranging debate on this bill, I’ve heard members across the other side of the Chamber talk as if they think—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Actually, I hope it’s not a wide-ranging debate, and will you come back to the matter at hand. Thank you. OK—thank you.

No, no, I’m talking about the debate that has been up until this point. I’ve heard members on the other side of the Chamber talk about excise tax as if it’s a diminishing tax that just goes away over time, when the reality is, once the excise increase is set, it remains there in perpetuity unless amended in legislation, such as we’re doing in Part 1 and now in Part 2 here. So all the tax that has been added on since excise was first introduced is still being collected. Those moneys are still being collected every year and on every litre of fuel that is sold, certainly for vehicles on the road.

The real question that we are looking at here in Part 2, as well as earlier in Part 1, is: do we need an incremental charge? Do we need even more tax? The tax we’ve been levying is still being collected. The answer we’ve held is no, particularly when there are other sources of revenue, such as are noted in the regulatory impact statement, such as Crown accounts using surplus funds in a much better way than the Government has been to date.

I’ve been reflecting also, and whether it’s the Minister’s leader talking about kindness and the rest of that, it is supposed to be a wellbeing Budget. I’ve reflected and thought I would like to help with some wellbeing with this amendment. The Government is determined that the wellbeing of New Zealanders is going to decrease through these taxes. Well, I’m thinking of the wellbeing of the Minister. I’m offering the Minister an opportunity here to negate—to cancel—the 2020 scheduled excise increase, and I will now tell the Minister why I believe it is a very good idea for his wellbeing.

He has a view—and it’s been articulated a number of times in this committee today but also outside in the past—that he would like to see a mode shift with more New Zealanders taking transport options other than driving their own cars, particularly if they’re single-occupancy vehicles. He also believes, as he has stated on more than one occasion, in incentives and how pricing can help to drive behaviours. So there is a clear correlation here. He’s got a view that putting more excise on people’s fuel consumption will lead them, will give them a natural incentive, to look at other options that might be available to them.

He’s also stated, both through the Government policy statement and in his speeches, that he has an intention to put more funding into these other options. So he’s going to create the choices, he believes, for people to use. But here’s the problem—here’s the hole that he’s digging himself, and which, ordinarily, I might be pleased to help him step into. It is quite a deep hole and will cause him quite a bit of damage. The Minister has built a model—it’s a house of cards model. His model requires fuel excise moneys to pay for transportation options that don’t naturally have a fuel excise attached to them, such as horrendously loss-making light rail options from Wellington Railway Station to Wellington Airport—$1.44 billion worth. He needs people in their cars, driving and paying tax, to help him fund that, and yet he’s putting in increases which his own logic says means fewer people will drive fewer kilometres, therefore leaving him an enormous funding hole.

Steven Joyce talked about an $11 billion hole in the Crown accounts. Well, Mr Twyford is busy digging one of a similar size in his transport budget. Minister, I’m here to help you. I’m here to help you. I am concerned about your wellbeing. I don’t want you next year to be like Phil Goff and David Cunliffe some years ago when they recommended using smoking taxes to fund taking GST off fruit and vegetables, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. So, Minister, I call on you to scrap the second round of tax excises—do yourself a bit of good.

Just before I call members, I just want to advise the committee that the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s tabled amendment to insert new Part 3 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can you elucidate for the committee the reason for the amendment being out of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): If you would so desire, I shall.

I would like it, because I put it in under Part 2, “Amendments to take effect on 1 July 2020”, and I thought that it would be in the interests of transparency and motorists’ wellbeing to know how they were being taken in this particular measure.

Thank you. I thank the member, and I thank you for asking for clarification. If the member would refer to Speaker’s ruling 113/3, the amendment is out of order because it is not in a form of words that may be embedded in law. It is actually technically inoperable.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It was my understanding that one person can only once in any part debate move a closure motion. The Hon Ruth Dyson moved a closure motion earlier in this part.

She did, and she’s quite able to move again. I think in this case we are getting close to the limit. I think I will take one more call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to continue to talk about—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I hope this is a relevant call without repetition.

Absolutely, Madam Chair, and I’ve got a number of relevant calls to make about the topic here which we’re discussing, which is “Amendments to take effect on 1 July 2020”. I think it’s important to reflect that this bill is about increasing taxes not once but twice on motorists—once this year, on 1 July, and another time next year, on 1 July 2020—by increasing excise tax by another 3.5c plus GST.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transport how he feels with his sun feelings and moon feelings as he puts in place a second tax, or is that just about trying to improve the Government’s locus of control by being able to force another two taxes on motorists over the next two years? That does not reflect well on what is a so-called wellbeing Budget.

I would like to ask a number of questions, which come from the “Impact Summary: Increases to Petrol Excise Duty and Road User Charges”. The first question I would like to ask the Minister is around the costs and benefits. It says here that “It is not possible to complete a detailed cost benefit analysis at this time,” and I would like to ask the Minister why a detailed cost-benefit analysis has not been completed on these increased taxes, and to also outline to the committee what, in his view, the cost-benefit analysis will be.

Further down in that part of this document, it says that “For the purposes of this analysis, the Ministry of Transport is assuming that the overall [National Land Transport Plan] programme will have a BCR of greater than one, so there will be a net-benefit from a higher level of investment.” I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give his assurances to the committee that this increased tax will have a positive cost-benefit analysis, because there are huge assumptions being made here in regard to the programme of works that this tax is going towards paying. That is a question which I’m sure motorists up and down this country would like to have an answer to if they are going to be required to pay this additional excise on 1 July 2020, because when we are asked to pay additional taxes, motorists and taxpayers are willing to pay that additional money if they understand where that money is going to and that it will actually have a positive benefit on their lives.

I would like to know from the Minister whether the ministry has conducted a cost-benefit analysis on all of the different projects which are in the Government policy statement, and whether they all do have—the ones which are funded—an actual cost-benefit analysis which is above one, because I think that’s an important piece of information. Motorists, who will be paying this petrol tax, have a right to know that the money that they are paying is actually going to go towards projects which are actually going to provide more benefit than the cost to what they will be paying.

I would also like to just make the point again that this increased tax will be regressive, and I know that the Minister has tried to refute that by saying this is only a small increase—only a small increase. This 3.5c increase might sound like a small increase, but that’s 3.5c on top of the 3.5c we’re going to get this year on 1 July 2019, and now we’re talking about an additional 3.5c next year.

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: And GST.

Plus GST—that’s quite correct, Mr Bakshi. That is an additional 15 percent on top of these two taxes, and in Auckland and in my electorate of Pakuranga, it’s not only these two taxes; it’s last year’s 3.5c increase and the 10c increase in the regional fuel tax, plus GST.

This is not a small increase. What we are looking at for people in my electorate is an over 20c per litre increase in their taxes. That is not insubstantial. And how about the people in Ōtara? How about the people that Mr Bakshi represents in south Auckland and the real impact that it has on people, particularly those on fixed or low incomes? This is a regressive tax, this is an increased, substantial tax, and the Minister should take responsibility for what this tax actually is.

I will take the Hon David Bennett, but I have to say my patience is being tested in terms of repetition and I will sit the member down if I find repetition.

Yes. Madam Chair, I intend to bring up a couple of points that haven’t been canvassed so far. The first point is in regard to how once we look at Part 2 and we look at clause 5 and 6 added together, we get to that 8c figure, which is, effectively, $260 per car that a household will have to pay. Now, most households are two-car families, and there will be over $500 that every family in New Zealand is basically going to have to pay out from this tax grab. In practical terms, that’s $10 a week that the Government has taken off every family in New Zealand today—$10 a week. That is a huge amount of money. We are talking about a tax bill here, and we haven’t talked about what the actual financial implication will be per family, and $10 a week per family is what they will be paying now.

Many of my colleagues have talked about how people aren’t able to access public transport options as an alternative in many parts of the country. But I want to raise a new point, and that is that the timing of this doesn’t make sense, because all the public transport options the Minister has been talking about don’t even start being built until about 2022.

The City Rail Link in Auckland that they’re looking at building from the city to the airport starts in about 2022, and then they’re raising money now. They’re raising money before they actually have to pay it on those things. So New Zealanders are paying ahead. They’re paying three or four years ahead of when that money is required. That is completely unacceptable and nobody has pointed that out in this committee. We haven’t discussed how New Zealanders are now being charged for something they’re not actually getting. They’re having to pay for something that may happen in the future; it may or may not happen. If we look at some other prospects of Government policy, they don’t happen.

That is $10 a week for the average New Zealand family, and most of them don’t get any benefit off it at all, because as we’ve heard before, most New Zealanders don’t live in a place where they can access these two rail options that are really where this money’s going. It’s going to fund the central rail link and it’s going to fund the rail link between Auckland and the airport. That’s where this money’s going—let’s not beat around the bush; that’s what the Minister needs the money for and that’s what he’s going to do with it. One of the projects hasn’t even started, so why are people paying for it? And both of them are only accessible to a very small proportion of the New Zealand population.

Then comes the third point that I want to raise, which is a new point in this debate as well, and that is the inequity between transport funding throughout New Zealand. For too long, some regions have had a limited amount of capital funding coming out of the transport budget. Now, some members of the Opposition will say that doesn’t matter; you’re still getting maintenance funding and all that. But when you’re looking at capital funding for new projects, the Wellington region has done the best out of any region over many, many years. As a proportion of the population, it’s probably only about 7 or 8 percent of the population, and yet the Wellington region gets 10 percent—OK? Well, it gets over 13 or 14 percent of funding. It does. [Interruption] Well, if the Minister in the chair doesn’t agree with that, then show me the figures, because if he looks at the capital funding that goes into Wellington, it is certainly higher than the proportion of population. Isn’t that true, Minister Twyford? You shook your head before, but it’s true, isn’t it? Yes, it is.

So we’ve just had an admission from the Minister, who was before saying no, but now when you ask him directly, he refuses to answer. So Wellington gets a higher proportion of funding than its population. So how about somewhere like Southland, Minister? Does it get a higher proportion of funding and of capital funding from transport budgets than its population? Does it, Minister? He’s gone silent. He doesn’t want to explain to the members of Southland. Well, I’ll give him a really easy one. Has Auckland, over the years, got a higher proportion of funding than its population? The answer is no. Auckland has been underfunded for many years. Auckland has been subsidising Wellington for many, many years, and Auckland is finally getting some money out of this. But at the same time, they’re making all Aucklanders pay for it, not just the ones that can access the service. I think if—[Time expired]

Just a moment—before I call members, I just want to refer to the new tabled amendment in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Unfortunately, this is ruled out of order, and the same ruling applies as previous. It’s difficult to determine who this actually applies to with the wording in which this tabled amendment is written, so it is ruled out of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chair, I’d obviously want to seek the guidance of the Clerk’s Office in getting the language right, because I do think it’s important that people know how much the excise is. So when it says that it must be displayed at fuel stations, what’s unclear about that?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): What is unclear is who is actually obliged to be covered by this particular amendment.

That’s right, but the next section of the amendment makes it clear that there can be no delivery of motor fuels to a fuel station if the motor fuel station is not displaying the excise amounts. Now, that would mean that they can’t operate their business. So it’s pretty clear, I think, who is responsible. It’s as clear, for example, as some of the parts in this bill about who is actually paying. So I’m really deeply disappointed that the Clerk’s Office has decided to advise you in such a fine and narrow way, although I would note that it is a growing trend from the Clerk’s Office.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK. I thank the member for his contribution in that regard, but we are ruling it out of order.

I move, That the question be now put.