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

I’ve just got a specific question to the Minister and the officials. So we’re saying that this legislation comes into force on 1 July 2019, in order to bring an extra 3.5c a litre excise in. Now, looking at the impact summary, it did refer to the Road User Charges Act 2012 requiring 42 days between the gazetting of the new road-user charges rates and when the new rates go into effect.

So I’m just wanting some clarity around how this works, because this flows through to, as I understand it, the road-user charges. We’re well less than 42 days before it comes into effect, and so presumably it should have been gazetted back on 19 or 20 May, and presumably that won’t have happened if the law hasn’t been passed. So I’m very keen just to get some clarity around the timing of how that works in relation to this bill, because, obviously, if you’re signalling to motorists—the diesel users, particularly—that there’s going to be an increase, ultimately, in the road-user charges—a 5 or 6 percent increase—and the Road User Charges Act requires 42 days for the gazetting, has that gazetting happened already, and if so, isn’t the usual practice to pass legislation, have the legislation go through Order in Council, and then the gazetting takes place? So that’s a simple and basic question that I’d like to get an answer to.

I used to think that Sir Humphrey of Yes Minister fame was a fictional character, but I realise that he is clearly alive and well and he’s been working away in the Beehive. I want to talk in this title and commencement debate about the fact that this is a really Orwellian and totally unjustified measure. The title of the bill is absolute gobbledygook—Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill—deliberately designed to confuse the public into not noticing what’s going on. And it’s worked.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, they won’t be confused at the pump.

They probably won’t be confused at the pump, and I am so disappointed that the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s amendment wasn’t accepted, because that would have given the public the information that they are entitled to have to know exactly what is happening.

I want to follow the “keep it simple” principle and suggest a new title for this bill, and that is, simply, “Excise (Further Unjustified Increase to Petrol Tax) Bill”. That’s exactly what it is, and we should call it out for what it is. Motorists are already paying a huge amount in excise tax on fuel, and the really sneaky part about this is that in all their pre-Budget hype, as they were telling us over and over again that this was going to be about wellbeing, they never mentioned this. They never told the motorists, “The first thing we’ll do in a wellbeing Budget is put your petrol tax up.” So let’s give it that name.

But if the Government won’t accept that, let’s try “Excise (Tell the Motorists How Another Petrol Tax Increase Helps Their Wellbeing Bill”. If this is a wellbeing Budget, it’s incumbent upon every member of the parties opposite—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—to tell the motorists of New Zealand how this measure helps their wellbeing, when, as speakers noted in the debates last night, this will more than cancel out any benefits that some of them are going to see from other measures in the bill. The member for Tukituki made a very good point in that regard last night.

Giving the bill a title that is absolute gobbledygook to 99 percent of the population doesn’t make it more palatable; it simply reflects the Government’s sneaky aim to fool the electorate and fool the media into not noticing that this tax increase is happening. Well, this is dishonest. It’s heartless. It’s the direct opposite of a wellbeing measure. So the bill’s title should reflect that.

But if they won’t go with that one, let’s have another one: the “Excise (We’ll Charge You More But Give You Nothing in Return) Tax Grab Bill”. In my region, the mighty Waikato, there is widespread dismay at this Government’s abandonment of our important Waikato roading projects. I see the member for Waikato-Tainui over there. I know that she’ll agree with me that under the John Key - led administration, one of the greatest things that we were able to do—probably the single most important thing for our region—was to promise the Waikato Expressway, which was a 10-stage project to be delivered in 10 years. It was a $2.1 billion project, so a huge investment, and while we were in Government, it was on track. We were delivering it on time and under budget.

The sections that have already been completed are making a huge difference to the hundreds of thousands of motorists that travel not only within our region but through our region, because, after all, the main trunk line from Auckland and further north right down through the central North Island is hugely busy. Thanks to the sections that are now under way, journeys are safer, they are quicker, and for that reason, they are also more fuel efficient. So, in other words, it’s also very good for the environment.

There are huge benefits, and yet there is nothing. The Hon David Bennett made a very good speech before, pointing out how much our region misses out and, in particular, the dishonesty of the fact that the projects that are supposedly going to benefit—and it’s really just the City Rail Link; so some Aucklanders will benefit—from this measure don’t even come into effect for a long time. So that’s why I’m suggesting this new title.

What we’ve got here is a shambolic, tax-grabbing Government. We’ve got a major section no longer progressing on target in the Waikato Expressway. That is hugely disappointing. Why is it? It’s because there is so much uncertainty in the construction sector now that the construction workers who are building the roads are leaving the country again, and so the companies can’t find the workforce to continue to build the road. The National Government proposed to extend the expressway from Karapiro to Piarere. That’s a very dangerous and extremely busy section, and it’s off the table with this Government. We were also going to extend the project down to Tīrau—again, hugely popular. Lots of people voted for it, and this Government has taken it off the table. This is a fundamentally dishonest measure.

Members, Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 2(1) is out of order as being consequential on an amendment that has been negatived. Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 2(2) is out of order as being consequential on an amendment that has been negatived.