Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

This bill is an important priority for the Government. At the beginning of 2023, the Prime Minister made it very clear in his opening address to this House—only this week—that the Government will be relentlessly focused on the challenges that New Zealanders face in respect of cost of living pressures in 2023. We have a broad programme to address those measures which go to direct supports to households, our ongoing work to build better wages, our policies to ensure that we have a more competitive supermarket industry, and this policy now, which for over approximately one year now has saved New Zealanders nearly $1 billion in energy costs. By the time this policy is extended, as a result of this bill, $1.3 billion of household costs will have been avoided by the reductions to fuel excise duty, road-user charges, and half-price public transport. That is one of the most meaningful policies that any Government has delivered in recent times to reduce costs to New Zealand households in a very practical way.

I do hear, and I’ve heard it tonight, a lot of noise about cost of living from a range of commentators. Well, it’s OK to talk about those things and acknowledge them; those pressures on New Zealand households are real, but what people actually need are practical measures that put more dollars in the pockets of householders in the wake of these challenges.

💬 Simeon Brown: Like tax relief.

I’ll just repeat for the benefit of—oh, like tax cuts, Mr Brown pipes up. I don’t know whether that would be the $2 per week tax cuts that his party has proposed for minimum wage earners or the massive tax cuts that his party has proposed for the highest-income earners in New Zealand. That might be the position of his party; our party is focused on the needs of low and middle income Kiwis who are having a tough time. And in respect of this policy, we can be very specific about the benefits that flow through to householders. For a household with a car with a 60-litre tank, $17 is saved every time that tank is filled up. For those who benefit from the associated half-price public transport policy, who might take two journeys a day to get to and from work—potentially up to $25 a week.

So these are practical policies. They don’t take away all of the additional costs; we acknowledge that. But they do make a meaningful difference, and I’m actually yet to hear practical policies in response that would make a bigger difference. What is more, with this policy, it is one that we’re able to extend quickly and easily through this process to enable that benefit to extend through for a further period. And so I think it is a very important part of that relentless focus that our Government has on bread and butter issues, on cost of living.

There is one other issue that I do wish to address, and I acknowledge my colleagues from the Green Party in the House here who have indicated they will not be supporting this piece of legislation. It was one of those interesting nights where we did have an alliance of the Green Party and the ACT Party linking arms and possibly opposing this policy for slightly different reasons. It is sometimes interesting the alignments we get in this House.

The Green Party, I acknowledge, do not support this policy from a point of principle. It is not one I fully agree with, but I acknowledge the point of principle, which is that they are concerned that any policy which lowers the cost of fuel has the potential to create more vehicle kilometres travelled and more carbon emissions. To a small extent that is true and, the modelling of this policy does show a small impact in terms of greater vehicle kilometres travelled and therefore carbon dioxide emissions. The impact is relatively small, in the Government’s view, as compared to the cost of living benefit that we can provide. So the impact, for example, doesn’t meet the threshold for a climate implications of policy assessment, which is the threshold that Cabinet sets for a full assessment of carbon impact. So it’s there, it’s real, but it’s not large, and we believe that, given the cost of living pressures, it is appropriate to proceed.

I do also note that we balanced this policy up very specifically with the half-price public transport policy, which is part of that broader cost of living package which has supported more Kiwis to re-engage with public transport. And we continue to roll out more policies across public transport, safe walking, and cycling to give people those choices, to move around their towns and their communities in a lower-carbon way, coupled, of course, with the extraordinary progress that we’re making in electrifying the New Zealand fleet. We’re now one of the top markets in the world after Scandinavia for sales of electric vehicles, thanks to the Clean Car Discount. So I acknowledge the point from the Greens, I understand their position, but I just provide assurance that we continue to work across the programme to reduce our emissions, which is so important as we reflect on the climate change - induced extreme weather events that have caused so much devastation to our country in recent weeks.

I will conclude my comments by noting once again that this policy is a practical way in which the Government is following through on its commitment to be focused on cost of living. I do welcome the support from the other side of the House for the legislation. Some of the speeches have been somewhat awkward in that for eight or nine minutes they’ve tried to criticise the Government for the policy and then said, “Yes, but we’ll support it.” I think that’s because most people here, including in the National Party, recognise that it is important to address these cost of living issues. This is a good policy to do it. It makes a practical difference. It’ll help Kiwis and there’s more on the way from this Labour Government, which stands by working New Zealanders in 2023. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the third reading of the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2), and of course it’s “No 2”, because this is the second time this Government’s come to the Parliament to extend a policy they’ve announced four or five times. And it’s the only policy that this Government’s ever had to address the cost of living. The cost of living crisis is not something that is new, as you might have thought from this Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, who’s suddenly found this focus on the bread and butter issues when for the last 12 months—well, more than 12 months—New Zealanders have been suffering under a cost of living crisis with incomes rising slower than inflation, with costs going up all around them, interest rates continuing to rise, the Reserve Bank once again putting up the official cash rate. This is causing pain for New Zealanders, but all this Government’s got is, “Oh, what we’ll do is we’ll reduce petrol taxes and we’ll reduce, temporarily, road-user charges”. And as my colleague Chris Penk said in his speech, it seems a bit disingenuous actually using the word “temporary” in this legislation because it’s the fifth time they’ve actually extended it. So when does something end up not being temporary?

But we will support this piece of legislation because it does provide some relief for working families, for people who are facing that tsunami of cost of living crises that they are facing on a daily basis; the bills that they’re having to pay, of which one of them is, of course, the price of fuel which has become incredibly expensive. But we do call out this Government and we do say, “Well, actually, where is the plan to deal with the cost of living?” Where is the plan to deal with the underlying causes of inflation other than just simply putting in place this policy? Where’s the plan to give working New Zealanders some of the money that they earn back into their own pockets? This is a Government which is taxing New Zealanders at record levels, pushing people into higher and higher tax brackets despite their real income going backwards. That is theft. That is daylight robbery from this Government. Where’s the plan to get wasted spending under control? Where’s the plan to actually stop the wastage which we’re seeing under this Government? Where’s the plan to stop the burdensome regulations on businesses? Because that is what businesses are crying out for, a plan to actually relieve them of the increased regulation that they’re constantly facing. And what this Government did to the Reserve Bank is give them a dual mandate rather than have a single mandate, which is what they should have focused so they can actually properly deal with the cost of living. So, Madam Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I ask the member to come back to this bill.

The Minister said in his speech when he criticised the plan that National has released around providing tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders, but what he didn’t talk about was the fact that he’s giving millions of dollars to Tesla owners. Millions of dollars to millionaires to buy Teslas. Absolutely ridiculous policy from the Government, once again taking from those who don’t have choices and giving it to people who do already. That’s the Government’s solution to the cost of living crisis is this bill and then giving millions to Tesla owners. It’s madness. It’s absolute madness that this Government thinks that giving millions to Tesla owners is the way to fix the cost of living crisis. But I guess you can add that to the list for the other side of the House’s achievements.

So we have supported this piece of legislation because it does an important thing. It aligns the fact that people who go with their petrol vehicles to the pump today and fill them up are getting the reduction in their fuel excise duty. They’re getting that today. But if you’ve got a diesel vehicle or if you’re a truckie or a farmer who does the hard work getting our goods to market, growing our food and doing those things, and if you go down to buy your road-user charges, you’re having to pay the full rate. And that’s because of one thing: this Government thought this—well, they said this policy was going to finish at the end of January. And then lo and behold, on 1 February they woke up and thought, “Well, actually, we need to think about the bread and butter issues. We need to think about the bread and butter issues, so we’d better”—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: What about the vegetables?

Well, I know, as my colleague Barbara Kuriger has said, what about the vegetables as well? Vegetables are up—what is it? Fresh fruit and vegetables up 22 percent in the last 12 months, and the point there is all those farmers with their tractors, they of course don’t benefit at all. That is why we actually need a plan. We actually need a plan to deal with the underlying causes of inflation and this is a band-aid solution which, yes, provides some relief but doesn’t deal with the underlying causes of inflation that we’re seeing in New Zealand. So, yes, this bill does mean that those people with diesel vehicles now get the benefit of this policy as well. It would be absolutely wrong if that was to be only given to petrol vehicles and not to our truckies, our farmers, our tradies, those who drive diesel vehicles, the benefit of this policy has to go to them as well.

But at the same time we do hold reservations about how this Government has inserted clause 6, which is now effectively to give themselves a five-year extension to be able to continue to extend this policy and, mark my words, this policy will be re-announced by this Government. Hopefully, they announce it before 30 June, but my guess is it’ll be announced on 1 July when they wake up and remember, “Actually, we should focus on the bread and butter issues again”, because that’s what they do. They wait for the policy to expire and then they wake up and go, “Oh darn, we need to focus on the bread and butter issues again, we better extend that temporary road-user charge”. And mark my words, there will not be a cost of living package plan from this Government in this Budget. There will be more taxes. There’ll be more taxes on hard-working Kiwis, because all this Government knows what to do is to tax and to waste and to spend, and they don’t know how to deliver, and they certainly don’t know how to make sure the economy is working for New Zealanders.

So we’ll support this piece of legislation, but what New Zealanders need is a plan which helps ensure that they are in charge of their lives, that they are back in the driver’s seat of their own lives, not having a Government which does not have a plan, which does not have a direction for this country and all they have is band-aid solutions without actually getting to the underlying issues.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise for the third speech on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2023. Tonight, we’ve traversed in this House the challenges that all of our communities face in the cost of living crisis, we’ve called it, but the reality is that we need families to be focused on the things that matter: putting food on the table, getting to work, ensuring that our kids are in the classroom for their learning. This particular piece of legislation enables those families to consider those costs against the access and the opportunity that their young people face. That’s what we want to support. Our Government is focused on ensuring that the bread and butter issues to New Zealanders have outcomes, and this piece of legislation is attempting to do that, in some ways. We’ve got a work programme that’s dedicated to helping New Zealanders, and I commend this bill to the House.

Isn’t it ironic that all night we hear, in regards to the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2), that this is here to solve bread and butter issues? The last speaker, Shanan Halbert, just talked about bread and butter issues. I think Minister Wood referred to bread and butter issues. Well, this sounds like a bread and butter pudding, to be honest—that is, well overcooked, and it’s going to be very chewy and not taste that good. But I’m getting pretty tired of hearing this recurring statement about bread and butter—and I’m not sure what sort of butter they’re buttering the bread with, but I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it for a second. And I’ll tell you what, I think Kiwis have higher expectations than just having bread and butter for every meal.

That is the challenge with this piece of legislation. As I said before, Kiwis are hurting across this country, and they are hurting because of the actions and the policies by this Labour Government. And that is a great shame, because the Government have within their powers to be able to dictate the fiscal policy decisions—the choices and the options—that they can actually make some sustainable and significant change of substance that will actually deal with the underlying cost of living problem. This piece of legislation, as has been traversed in the House throughout the evening, does not deal with the underlying substance of the issues that face hard-working Kiwis across this country. It is, as Simeon Brown articulated before, a band-aid solution.

And you know what? Kiwis deserve more from their Government. They deserve a clear plan that has substance, that has actions that are underpinned by evidence that it’s actually going to deal with the heart of the issue. They don’t deserve simply a reoccurring amended bill that is a temporary bill that goes on for five years. It is simply just picking at straws. It actually shows that this Government do not have any other ideas. They’re out of ideas. They’re out of ideas in terms of what they do with the cost of living crisis. They’re out of ideas in terms of how they fight inflation. They have got no other ideas other than putting a reduction in terms of the fuel prices. And as Simeon Brown articulated, in absence of any other ideas it is not inconceivable that we’re going to support a piece of legislation, to say, “Actually, you know what, in absence of any other ideas of any substance, and in absence of a Government actually reading the clearly articulated plan that we have articulated, which will fight the cost of living and fight inflation—in absence of all that, then we will be supporting this piece of legislation.” But it’s only because this is as good as it gets from this Labour Government, and that is a great shame.

I mentioned before in my first reading speech that the cost of this Government is driving up the cost of living. The costs and the spending by this Government, the wastage that they are undertaking, is driving up the cost of living. And so as a result of their actions, then, they are having to come in with a piece of legislation like this to try and, basically, put a band-aid over the fact that Kiwis are going backwards across this country. Kiwis are going backwards no matter where you live in this country, and that is setting up a pretty dark future, particularly for our younger generations, in terms of what that looks like going forward. Nothing of any substance, nothing to deal with the underlying issues. No appetite to reduce Government waste, no appetite to reduce these pet projects that we—and I’m not going to articulate them all, because the list is growing longer and longer, and, you know, it’s just repeating and repeating. Every day, with inflation, those projects are going up.

But the reality is that Kiwis deserve more from this Government. They are hurting. Their hurt is caused by this Government. And this piece of legislation is not going to provide a sustainable solution for that.

It’s a pleasure to take another short call on this bill tonight. I wanted to make a particular reference tonight about why it was so important that we are reducing the excise on petrol and the road-user charges, as well as reducing the cost of public transport.

Much has been made about the need for us to also be investing in public transport and for that to be our focus. But the point I wish to make is that, having campaigned in my electorate of Nelson, for over 10 years now, for improved public transport, there are many parts of our country that have had decades of under-investment in public transport. In Nelson, for example, the buses only come every hour or so. We will be changing that from 1 July; they will be increasing significantly in frequency. But, in the meantime, until we make those changes, we need to ensure that those low-income people—who do have vehicles; many of them do have diesel vehicles—who can’t catch a bus in Nelson on a Sunday, because they hardly exist, are covered by this legislation.

So I just want to point out that we are doing those things, we are building that infrastructure, but we also need to ensure that people actually have the money in their pockets to put bread on the table, to pay the rent in the meantime. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Now, more than ever, we need leadership on these issues. We need leadership because we’re going to have to change a lot of things to combat climate change. We’ve waited too long. A previous speaker from the National Party said Kiwis were hurting—yeah, they’re hurting because successive Governments, decades of successive Governments, have failed to invest and prepare for climate change and invest in a transport system that is less reliant on fossil fuels.

We can absolutely do that, but we can’t do it if we keep doing what we’ve always done in the past. We can’t do it if we keep letting the ultra-wealthy get wealthier, if we allow a few big corporates, like 20 big corporates in New Zealand, make excess profits—no, we’re not going to be able to solve these problems, and we certainly can’t do it if the political debate is all about where we are right now.

The reality is there were other options to help low income and middle income New Zealanders deal with higher prices and higher cost of living, and that could have been done through a direct cash payment. It would have benefited those households more than this road-user charge cut and the subsidy for fuel excise.

We’re going to have to raise money to build infrastructure. You know, I’ve heard from the National Party that they’re just going to keep borrowing to pay for things. They oppose every single proposal that would actually reduce climate pollution, make the economy more fair, or raise revenue in a fair way—they oppose. So not a single constructive solution. There’s a fantasy about building four-lane roads everywhere in the country. They didn’t even manage to deliver 200 kilometres of that over 10 years. So there’s just no way they’re going to be able to deliver it all around the country, and certainly not unless they look really hard at raising revenue to pay for it. So it’s an absolute fantasy on the on the right side of the House.

Unfortunately, our Labour Government isn’t building the infrastructure that we need. There actually is not a huge investment going on in regional rail right now. There is not a huge investment in public transport services. Most of the Transport Budget is still being spent on outrageously priced urban motorways that make congestion worse and give New Zealanders no opportunity to get around without having to rely on a car and rely on fossil fuels.

We need climate leadership. The Green Party will continue to provide that. Luckily, we will have an opportunity later this year to change the Government to one that’s actually going to take on the real issues of inequality and of climate change and of ecological catastrophe. We have the means, we have the ability to work together to solve our collective challenges, but we need to be able to tell the truth and not give in to these short-term policies that seem popular to keep you in power a little bit longer when all you’re doing is continuing the status quo—Madam Speaker, I know not you, personally. But yeah, we need real change because this policy, this legislation we’re debating, it’s—three to five times more money is going to go to the wealthiest New Zealand households from this than to the lowest-income New Zealanders. That’s the problem with this policy.

There are options to help low-income New Zealanders who need to drive. You do it through cash payments, not through direct subsidies to fossil fuels that benefit the highest-income people more than the lowest income people.

This is only week two of the 2023 parliamentary year, and already we have an example of extremely poor lawmaking which offers New Zealanders an example of what a Labour Government will continue to do indefinitely unless they’re held to account by the ACT Party.

This regulatory impact assessment of this bill, which proposes to cut revenues from road users to the tune already of $1.3 billion in 10 months, $115 million a month, and instead either borrow that money or add $1.3 billion, maybe $1.5 billion, a year to taxpayers’ tax bills.

This bill proposes to extend a policy that was an emergency response to the fuel price spikes after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This bill should not be extended for one day longer. This Government has failed to address long-term problems with infrastructure funding and financing. In fact, this bill makes that problem much, much worse.

Minister Michael Wood sat in a truncated committee of the whole House stage and explained that this policy was highly effective, even though officials point out in this document prepared after the fact—10 months after this policy came into effect last year—that, in fact, it would be far more preferable, if the Government was worried about the cost of living, to transfer taxpayer funds through welfare schemes, for example, to people who most needed it.

Instead, this is a shotgun firehose of $1.3 billion of taxpayers’ funds in only 10 months—with five more years potentially to roll on this program; $7 billion to $8 billion of spending potentially—for a policy that officials described as, “At this time, no formal or comprehensive evaluation work has been completed by the ministry on this policy.” They don’t know if it works; they don’t know if it actually helps reduce the cost of living.

But what we do know is at a time that New Zealand roads have been devastated by flood events, by storm events—and I’m not just talking about the January and February 2023 events. We look at State Highway 1 and the Mangamukas that connects Kaitāia to Whangārei; we look at that road and we say, “Well, the Minister said he’s going to spend $100 million of taxpayer funds fixing that up.” That road’s been closed since August last year. Trucks need to detour 90 minutes through unsuitable roads to get goods and freight to Kaitāia—food, fuel, and other materials—and to bring from Kaitāia and Northland things that they make that earn money for Northland: dairy products, timber products from the Juken mill from Kaitāia. An extra 90 minutes for each truck, an extra 90 minutes each driver spends in the cab, an extra 90 minutes of fuel usage.

Instead of prioritising the repair, the rehabilitation, the resilience, the safety and efficiency of New Zealand roads, the Minister believes that instead the Government should offer a road-user charge cut to motorists. Some of them could be driving a 1990 Toyota Hilux Surf—that’s a fantastic vehicle. But even somebody driving a Toyota Hilux Surf who gets the benefit of this pays. They pay for the pleasure of a Labour Government announcement—$1.3 billion is what it’s cost Kiwi taxpayers.

So the ACT Party won’t be supporting this; this is an example of terrible lawmaking using the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which happened in March 2022, and the petrol price spike that happened shortly after as an excuse to persist with this policy, even though—even though—the Minister admitted that fuel prices have come back to what they were roughly before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On that basis, there’s no justification for this policy.

If the Minister wanted to relieve the pressure of the costs of living on taxpayers’ pockets; on Kiwis’ pockets; on motorists, what the Minister could do instead—and this is what I suggested—is look to reprioritise some of the projects funded under the National Land Transport Programme. As much as I like walking and cycling—I walk to work as often as I can; I ride a bike, particularly with my son, as often as I can—those are personal choices. Yet the National Land Transport Programme allocates $670 million to walking and cycling over three years.

That surely must be optional spending at this time, when our roads and highways—particularly in the North Island—have been devastated by floods, slips, and are still subject to natural hazards. Roads that, as a roading engineer, I look at and I know full well have not been evaluated for their performance and suitability most likely since the 1980s. So in my entire lifetime as a driver, most of the roads and highways—apart from those fantastic new four-lane and six-lane roads around the Waikato, Auckland, and Wellington like Transmission Gully—are no different to when I got my driver’s licence in the 1980s. It’s a sad indictment of all Governments since then—of all stripes.

That’s why ACT proposes new solutions to fund roads and infrastructure. Here we are, here’s the solution that we propose—ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature. Instead of giving, with one hand, a rebate on road-user charges to one group of New Zealanders while taking from another—the taxpayers that will fund the $1.3 billion this policy’s already cost; maybe the $7 billion to $8 billion it will cost over five years—what ACT would propose is, in fact, we move away from this road-user pricing scheme altogether; road-user charges. We move away from fuel excise duties and we instead replace this archaic and outdated scheme which doesn’t account for electric vehicles; it doesn’t account for the fact that hydrogen-powered trucks and buses are coming on our road, because it doesn’t collect any revenue from them. Instead, we move away from fuel excise duties and road-user charges to a system of road pricing.

That is fair. And the reason it’s much fairer on Kiwis is because they have a choice whether they drive at peak times. This is what’s been proven in the UK, in London, where they introduced road pricing to reduce congestion in London: that people chose not to drive at peak times, rather than incur the charge. For those who must drive at peak times—delivery drivers, truck and trailer drivers delivering quarry rock and concrete to project sites—they will pay the charge because it’s important that they get their load, they get their delivery there on time.

It’s a much fairer system. For people who do need a car for work, instead of paying these blanket fuel excise duties and road-user charges—which accrue to billions and billions of dollars a year—and receiving a fraction of the benefits, only one-third of the National Land Transport Fund—all of that money collected from motorists—only one-third of the $15 billion is actually spent on road maintenance and road construction: $5 billion out of the $15 billion.

This Minister said not a single project will be reprioritised, potentially, to fund this road-user charge discount—not a single project—and that the money would come from somewhere; that we shouldn’t worry. Don’t worry, taxpayers of New Zealand; don’t worry, road users. There’s nothing to see here. This is a payment, a benefit that will help you during this cost of living crisis. It’s nonsensical. It’s illogical. We heard similar arguments from Shanan Halbert, the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I’m disappointed. I didn’t realise when I came to Parliament I’d be facing people who talk such nonsense, who couldn’t engage in a rational debate, who use falsehoods and gaslighting—falsehoods and gaslighting—pretending the fuel price is the same as it was in March 2022. But that’s what we’re facing here. And ACT offers a different alternative; we offer long-term reform—

💬 Sarah Pallett: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the language used by the speaker was inappropriate in the House, particularly with regard to accusatory of falsehood.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Sorry?

💬 Sarah Pallett: The speaker was accusing the Labour Party of falsehood.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): When he was using “gaslighting”?

💬 Sarah Pallett: He directly accused Shanan Halbert of falsehood.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the member care to elaborate on the falsehood?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The accusation and the use of Shanan Halbert—which by the way, he’s not even in the House—is also out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise.

Not wishing to litigate that point of order; I did not refer to the member Shanan Halbert as being out of the House. I referred to him as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I referred to statements he had made in the second reading of this bill, which he claimed were the justification for this policy. Yet the statement here—the regulatory impact statement here—actually contradicts what both the Minister and Shanan Halbert said.

💬 Camilla Belich: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We clearly heard, on this side of the House, the reference to the member Shanan Halbert and the word “falsehood” used by the member. So I don’t think it’s up to our side to elaborate on that. It’s a point of order in relation to something which is against the Standing Orders.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’m not going to take another point of order, Nicole McKee, because I do recall that he did use the term “falsehood”. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. So let’s be clear: the ACT Party is offering an alternative. That alternative is long-term reform of road pricing, funding, and financing. We want to see New Zealand’s roads built to withstand the next flood.

Order! The member is out of time. Are there any other members taking calls on this bill?