Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill

So we come first to clause 1. This is the debate on clause 1, the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill during the committee stage. We come to clause 1, which is the title provision, if I am correct, because this bill doesn’t have multiple parts, meaning that ultimately it requires each clause to be considered one by one. The title provision says that this bill is the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill. I think the more apparent name for this bill would be the “Road User Charges (Government Panicked at 10 March Poll) Amendment Bill”.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. We’re less than one minute in, and this speaker is already in breach of Speakers’ rulings. It’s very clear that a debate on the title is to be really defined, and any contributions and any suggestions of amendments are to be serious and are not to be used as a critique—

💬 Hon Member: Oh, serious?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK, all right. Thank you. Yes, I’ve—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: They are.

💬 Hon Member: Are you serious?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: It says in there.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you very much—thank you. Simeon Brown.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The point I’m making here is that as we’ve already traversed through this debate, this piece of legislation has been rushed into Parliament here, not in response to the war in Ukraine, but in response to a poll which came on 10 March, which this Government responded to, panicking, and made an announcement, but failed to actually think through the details of what was actually needed to deliver on that. So I propose that we amend it with a different name on that particular clause. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I call the Hon David Bennett, but in doing so, I would just advise the committee that the House is in urgency. Members haven’t had a chance to view the bill and haven’t had much notice. There haven’t been any public submissions, so therefore clause 1 will be a more fulsome debate around the bill, but I still will require members to address the bill that is in front of them. They’ve had two readings in which to provide a very full summary of the context of it, and when I’ve been chairing I’ve been listening to that very carefully. So clause 1, yes—fulsome. Please address the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The word “temporary” is what I want the Minister to answer: does he perceive that is for three months, and is it a permanent change or is it going to be a temporary change? If it is a temporary change, we just need a yes or no that in three months’ time, everybody knows that there will be a spike in petrol prices and there will be a spike in road-user charges. That’s the simple question. That is the first question.

The second question is: if it lasts longer than three months, where does the funding come for the transport budget? Is it still going to come from the potential COVID fund, or is there some other way that the Minister has envisaged that this non-temporary bill could actually be funding transport in New Zealand, because we have hypothecation of transport funding in this country?

The third question, which is another simple question, is: if it does go for further than three months and it is going to be funded through hypothecation, what projects will then be cut? What will the Government stop doing in transport to actually make this balance? Does that mean the end of Auckland light rail? Does that mean the end of that wonderful road we heard about in Ōtaki? Does that mean the end of the cycle bridge that we know will come one day under this Government?

What are the answers to those three simple questions? They are very simple questions, and I’m going to repeat them again for the Minister so he doesn’t try and fluff them and not answer them: is this temporary for three months or will it be longer—that’s the first question—the second question is: if it is longer, where’s the money coming from, and the third question is: if the money’s not coming from the hypothecation and the money’s not coming from COVID funds, then what is he going to cut to balance the budget?

In respect of the debate on clause 1, which relates to the title, the use of the word “temporary” has its usual meaning, which is “not permanent” and is an accurate title for the bill. To the extent that the member raised any other matters of substance, which was to a very small extent, those are matters which would be addressed in the debate on clause 4.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement