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

I present a legislative statement on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2023.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Could the Minister just try that again? According to my notes, there is no 2023, and we’ll just go by with what I’ve got.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: OK. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2).

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

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

As the Prime Minister has outlined in his statement to this House this week, our Government’s top priority continues to be addressing the cost of living pressures that many New Zealand households face. And one of the most important steps that we took to address those pressures last year was the temporary reductions in rates of fuel excise duty and road-user charges (RUCs), alongside half-price public transport. These measures provided a direct way of providing significant and ongoing financial support to nearly all Kiwi households as they have been dealing with cost of living pressures. Fuel excise duty was reduced by 25c per litre of fuel reduced, and to ensure a comparable reduction in rates of road-user charges, those rates were reduced by 36 percent, and that ensured that drivers of diesel vehicles, both private and commercial, received the same level of support as those driving petrol vehicles.

That support has been extremely important for families between March of last year and this time. The estimates that we can apply to the reductions that people receive—if we take someone filling up, with petrol, a 60-litre tank, that person will save approximately $17 every time they fill up their tank with petrol. And the same proportionate reduction in costs would apply to someone filling up their tank with diesel as well. Public transport users—someone taking two trips per day to get to and from work with a $5 bus fare would be saving approximately $25 per week. So while we acknowledge that there are still real pressures on many families, this policy has made a tangible difference and is an example of our Government’s commitment to doing practical things to help Kiwi families at this time.

While New Zealand has seen sustained reductions in petrol prices over recent months due to international factors, which are the fundamental drivers of the increases that we have seen in recent times—such as the war in Ukraine and strained post-COVID supply chains—we do know that those cost of living pressures do continue to persist. And the Government has made the decision that as a way of providing further practical support, a further extension of this policy is a good and helpful step for us to take. For this reason, we have extended the cut to fuel excise duty, and now is a time, through this legislative process, to reinstate road-user charge rates to that reduced rate of 36 percent lower than the ordinary rates.

Road-user charges, as I think most members of the House will be aware, largely apply to diesel vehicles, and they’re paid by the kilometre in advance of travel. So it’s quite a different system from the fuel excise duty that is, effectively, built in to the price that you pay at the pump if a person is going to get petrol for their vehicle. The system works by drivers purchasing a set number of kilometres and displaying that licence on their windshield or electronically via an E-RUC licence, and the number on the vehicle’s hubometer or odometer must be within the range that is stated on that displayed RUC licence. The particular complexity with road-user charges, as compared to fuel excise duty, is that there are over 200 different rates of road-user charges, and these relate to different weights of vehicles and different axle loads. Broadly speaking, heavier vehicles pay a higher rate of road-user charge to take into account the greater degree of damage that they cause to the road and, therefore, the greater cost in maintaining that road. And if that weight is spread out over a greater axle load, that is also calculated, as well.

So the simplest way of this change being made is through a piece of regulation that simply instructs the road-user charge collector—that is Waka Kotahi—to reduce the rates across the board by 36 percent. The previous reduction expired on 1 February, and so this piece of legislation being pursued through urgency ensures that we are able to reinstate that reduction to the benefit of Kiwi motorists as soon as we can.

The bill is straightforward, as I’ve outlined. It puts in place a second temporary reduction period for road-user charge rates, which will run between 1 March 2023 and 30 June 2023, and the rate of reduction—that 36 percent—will simply be the same as a rate of reduction which has been in place previously. Importantly, this bill will also create an ability to extend the road-user charge reductions beyond 30 June by Order in Council. That means that if that is deemed to be an appropriate thing to do at that time, it will create some flexibility to do so through a more simple and more streamlined process.

One of the other processes that we have built in, and will continue to build in, to this reduction are some controls to ensure that we manage against the possibility of excessive purchasing. Because the nature of the road-user charge system is that people purchase the licence in advance of using it, we do not want to have a situation in which people over-purchase at the reduced rate and, effectively, take advantage of a temporary scheme. The vast majority of people, of course, won’t do that, but a small number might, and out of fairness for all payers into the system, we need to protect against that.

And so there are two ways in which we manage that risk. Firstly, to discourage bulk purchasing, what we put in place was a process whereby the reduced rates expire one month after the end of the period of temporary reduction. And this is built out of procedures that are already in the Road User Charges Act that apply to purchases of road-user charges for heavy vehicles. So that means that people can purchase for the period, and there’s a little period beyond that, but purchasing that goes beyond that is not permissible.

Secondly, to address and prevent road users from bulk purchasing amounts, the Road User Charges Act does give Waka Kotahi the power to issue assessments for invoice where they believe that that purchasing has been excessive, unreasonable, or abusive of the scheme’s intent. Now, Waka Kotahi has been monitoring purchasing behaviour since the reductions were put in place and has found a small number of cases where they believe that has been the case, and they have undertaken enforcement action. So the Government does want to send the message clearly that this is a policy which is there to support Kiwi households and businesses at a difficult time, but we won’t tolerate people who take advantage of the scheme in those small number of cases, and the agency has the tools they need to follow up on that.

It’s anticipated that most road users will seek to purchase road-user charges at the reduced rate either through Waka Kotahi’s website or at an approved road-user charges agent. Local AA branches are a common place that people do that. So that will be available for people to do during February 2023 at standard rates. To ensure that they can benefit from the reduced rate, vehicle owners will be able to purchase what is known as an overlap licence. With an overlap licence, the licence begins on the current odometer or hubometer reading at the time of purchase, and the unused distance on an existing licence will be automatically credited to offset the new licence cost. That, effectively, means that those people get the benefit of the reduced rate from the time at which it is applicable.

The final thing that I wish to comment on, for the benefit of the House, is the way in which this programme of reductions will be funded. Across reductions for both fuel excise duty and road-user charges, the estimated total reduction in revenue into the National Land Transport Fund for this period will be in the order of $700 to $750 million. So it is a significant investment that has been made. That amount of money is, effectively, coming off the fuel bills of Kiwi households, and the Government is absorbing that cost, so it is a significant investment to relieve cost of living pressures. Now, it is important that we do continue to invest across the transport programme. We see that, obviously, in the huge amount of work that is ahead of us in cleaning up after the floods and the cyclone. So it’s important for people to understand that the Government will refund the reduced revenue into the National Land Transport Fund with direct funding from the Crown. So there is no reduction in the transport spend across New Zealand as a result of this policy, and I think that is something that people will want to know as a part of this piece of legislation.

In finishing, this is obviously an important and practical way of addressing cost of living pressures. There have been other proposals—for example, around changes to tax rates—that would not deliver anything near the benefit of this policy to Kiwi households. Once again, a Kiwi family filling up a 60-litre tank of petrol on a weekly basis saves 17 bucks. A public transport user in the associated part of this policy potentially saves $20 to $25 a week. So it’s a tangible difference to Kiwi households; it speaks to our commitment to focusing on those bread and butter issues of cost of living. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to the debate to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this piece of legislation, the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2)—the temporary RUC reduction, which is temporary for ever, it seems!

I saw the Minister, the Hon Michael Wood, speaking on the bill. He really didn’t want to be speaking on this bill. He really didn’t want to be speaking on the bill, because he has continued to issue press releases saying that this temporary road-user charge (RUC) reduction is about to end. He has been continually saying, “This will be ending”—well, firstly, it was only to be in place for three months, and then another three months, and then another three months. Then he finally issued a press release on 14 December, along with Grant Robertson, where they said, “The Government has invested over $1 billion over the past year to reduce fuel prices. However it is not sustainable to continue to subsidise the cost of petrol indefinitely for everyone [for ever]. We have to strike a balance between broad ongoing support and careful management of the Government accounts. That’s why we are transitioning to more targeted support for those most feeling the pinch.” It said then, “The Road User Charges (RUC) discount will end on January 31 2023. RUC is not being extended because it is pre-purchased”. That was the Minister of Finance back on 14 December. Then Michael Wood said, “It is important to get the balance right though, as these policies are not without significant costs. We’ve got to make sure they are sustainable when that duty and fares help make up the funding we use to fix our roads and invest in public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure.” That was last year, and this is now: “The petrol excise … cut will be 25 cents per litre until the end of June.” So now it’s been extended, and that is, of course, the Minister standing up and giving a speech which, I’m sure, he did not want to give.

But the point here—this piece of legislation—is not to do necessarily with the broad-based policy decision around whether the extension should have been done or not; that’s obviously the politics that this Government has realised. It still has not addressed the cost of living crisis that New Zealanders are facing. That’s the reason why we’re here: because this Government has still not actually dealt with the underlying causes of inflation. It hasn’t dealt with the fact that New Zealanders are paying too much tax; that we are being pushed into higher and higher income tax brackets, meaning Kiwi working families are paying more tax under this Government. They are still wasting hundreds of millions of dollars every single year. They’re continuing with a whole range of policy programmes like three waters, which is costing enormous amounts of money, which—

Simon Watts: It’s been reset!

SIMEON BROWN: Well, it’s had a name change. I don’t know what its new name is, but it’s having a name change. It’s having a reset.

Chris Penk: “Five waters.”

SIMEON BROWN: It’s going to be “five waters”, says Mr Penk. The point is, though, that this Government is not dealing with the underlying causes of inflation. All they’ve got is to put in place and to extend this policy. That’s the only idea they’ve got: to extend this policy.

But this bill does do an important thing, and that is why we will be supporting it. It’s because what it does is it ensures that our diesel drivers and our truck drivers get the cut as well as our petrol car users. Currently, people who drive a truck or a diesel vehicle are having to pay the full rate again, because this Government last year said, “We’re going to finish this at the end of January, and that’s it.” Of course, on 1 February, which is the day afterwards—they didn’t decide maybe to think about doing this before that announcement, before the actual RUC finished!—they decided, “Well, actually, we’re going to extend it on the first.” And they decided to make that announcement on 1 February. So, of course, our diesel vehicle users, our tradies, our farmers, our truck drivers, the people who move our goods, our exports to ports are having to pay the higher rate now. So what this bill does is extend that same reduction in road-user charge—the 36 percent reduction that the Minister spoke about—to those users as well. And that is important because, ultimately, this Government otherwise would just be giving the reduction to people who drive a petrol vehicle, and that would be completely unfair—completely unfair to give the reduction to people who use petrol but not to pass on that reduction to people who use diesel.

So what this piece of legislation does is it creates that fairness, and we are glad the Government’s finally bringing it to the House—a couple of weeks after it was actually announced—but I think what that speaks to is that this is ad hoc policy on the fly by a Government which doesn’t actually have a plan to deal with inflation. It doesn’t have a plan to deal with inflation, because it doesn’t actually know how it’s going to fix inflation in New Zealand. It’s a Government which knows how to spend big. It’s a Government which knows how to dream up new taxes. I heard about a flood tax today. They’re now thinking about a flood tax. In terms of when it comes to actually trying to deal with these issues, the only idea they’ve actually had is to put in place a temporary—which I’m sure has been welcomed by many people. Everyone who drives these vehicles has welcomed some relief, because it’s the only relief that this Government has ever given.

Let me just make another point: the 25c reduction in petrol excise—this Government might say, “Well, we’re reducing petrol excise by 25c.” Well, that sounds really interesting, but if you’re an Auckland motorist, you’ve had your excise increase by 12c under this Government, and you’ve had the Auckland regional fuel tax put in place, meaning you’re paying 23.5c per litre more in excise. So, actually, all this Government is doing for Aucklanders is just taking the excise back to what it was before they came to office. This Government is a Government which knows how to tax, it knows how to waste, but it doesn’t know how to actually deliver and fix the problems that New Zealanders are facing.

There’s one other point that I just want to make, which is in this bill, and the Minister only touched on this very, very briefly—very briefly. This bill includes a five-year extension for the Government to be able to continue to keep the temporary reduction in RUC in place; a five-year extension. So when the Minister of Finance said, on 1 February, “This extension takes us to the end of the financial year. We have already indicated that the Budget will have a cost of living focus,”—well, they should have thought about that last year—“and this extension covers the time until that comes into force,”—which is, of course, the end of June—well, I’m sorry but my prediction is this will be extended again, because that’s what this legislation does provide for. What we’re saying to the Government is that we need a real plan to deal with the underlying causes of inflation. The National Land Transport Fund is a hypothecated fund to help build and maintain our roading networks. This Government has absolutely stripped the funding from that fund. It has poured it into pet projects. It has taken it away from our State highways and our local roads. It has let our roads be deteriorated. Potholes are peppering our highways, and we actually need to make sure we do restore the integrity of that fund. But what this Government is doing is, effectively, giving themselves a blank cheque.

So what we’re saying is, yes, we support this piece of legislation—it aligns the temporary excise reduction with the temporary RUC reduction, which is critically important to our farmers, our tradies, our truckies, those who are moving goods around New Zealand, getting our goods to market; it’s critically important to doing that—but what this Government desperately needs to bring is actually a real plan to deal with inflation, get the cost of living under control, so that New Zealanders aren’t faced with higher and higher interest rates, higher costs of living. Their incomes are going up slower than inflation. Those are the issues that really matter to hard-working Kiwis, and we’re wanting a plan from this Government to address it. And guess what! If they don’t, we will. On 14 October, New Zealanders will have a choice, and we will deliver a plan to actually deal with these issues, get the cost of living under control, and actually get New Zealanders back in the driving seat of their own lives.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to stand and speak on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) this evening.

There was so much in that last speech, and now is not the time for politics because the reality of this particular bill is that it speaks to the hearts of Aucklanders driving around in current times who are feeling the pressures of the cost of living.

This Government is being pragmatic; it’s getting on with the ability to actually walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, we have to deal with the here and now. We have to deal with the cost of living challenges and petrol—the cost of petrol—is certainly a part of it.

But when we start to throw out “pet projects”—and the next one will be that suddenly there are challenges from the other side, actually, that we don’t need a second harbour connection, do we?—actually, these things are important to deal with Aucklanders moving around right now, and our ability to plan for a modern transport system and infrastructure to help people get around and move in our largest city.

So, without further ado, I think it’s important to acknowledge this particular bill. It deals with the cost of living challenges that are in front of us, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is an absolute pleasure to rise on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to just call out the speaker Simeon Brown for his articulation in regards to this bill which—while National will be supporting this bill because it obviously deals with a key element of inconsistency in the charging process, it reinforces a Government that does not have a plan to deal with the underlying issue—the number one issue in this country—which is inflation, and that is the reality.

So this bill’s coming in and it’s going to be an adjustment to extend this reduction for diesel users and, I think, as has been canvassed previously, in effect, the element that surprisingly the Minister did not mention in his speech—which is a key component—is that he’s given himself an open cheque book of five years to continue to extend this “temporary” reduction. I don’t know, what time is it? Are the kids back from school? The kids will be back from school now. But I can tell you what, I’m not sure what the definition of “temporary” is for those at home, but the last time I looked—

Simeon Brown: This Government is temporary.

SIMON WATTS: —five years is not temporary, right? Simeon Brown is saying, “This Government’s temporary.” Well, we’ll just have to wait and see but I know that Kiwis are sensible and they can see through this.

The reality is that, in regards to this legislation, there is no doubt that people are hurting out there across this country as a result of the cost of living crisis. But this Government is responsible for much of that hurt and for driving elements of this cost of living crisis that we face today. But they continually say, “It’s because of overseas factors; it’s not our fault.” They sort of forget that, as Government, you sort of have the levers to be able to make decisions in fiscal policy implications that actually change and have influences on what happens here in New Zealand. But no, no, no: “It’s a result of global factors.” Well, I’m sorry, the most recent—and we challenged today around some of this stuff, around the fact that, actually, when you look at those global constraints, they are cooling. A number of those factors that are driving the constraints which are feeding the cost of living crisis, which this bill is trying to address, are actually cooling in the international arena. So that reinforces that this Government are out of ideas.

This bill is the only idea that they have managed to come up with to deal with the cost of living crisis. And have they had a little bit of time to prepare this plan to deal with the cost of living crisis? Have they had time between when this last came through the House and now, to come up with other options? Well, of course they have. But have they done anything about it? No, of course not. All they’ve done is “You know what, let’s just renew this, let’s kick it to touch, let’s buy time”—buy a temporary amount of time, which is five years, which in itself is completely inconsistent—and they’ve done another example of band-aid economics. This is a band-aid; this is of no substance, no sustainable basis in order to deal with the core elements driving our cost of living crisis. And that’s a real shame.

That is a real shame for those people across this country that are hurting due to the implications of that cost of living crisis, that this Government is not taking their role seriously. They are not taking accountability. They are not taking responsibility for putting in place tangible solutions other than this road-user charge temporary amendment—no tangible solutions to actually deal with the core root cause of inflation which is crippling Kiwi households across this country. And that is completely unacceptable.

One example—let’s just throw some ideas out there. Of course, National have articulated our five-point plan for dealing with the cost of living crisis, and we put it out, you know, last year, so it’s not like it’s anything new. It’s just a shame that the Government actually haven’t literally read it and decided to implement it because, I tell you what, New Zealand would be far better off today than where we are if the Government had simply taken a little bit of advice from this side of the House, taken a little bit of leadership, listened to Kiwis across this country who are hurting, and actually implemented some changes.

One of those changes, quite simply, is getting rid of the waste—the bureaucracy; the bureaucracy and waste—hard-earned taxpayer dollars coming out of the back pockets of hard-working Kiwis. You know what, in regards to this legislation where they think the solution is a road-user charge amendment bill, they haven’t thought about the fact “Why don’t we fire those high-priced consultants that are undertaking advisory work on the three waters legislation?”, which the majority of Kiwis think is an absolutely wasteful idea—$30 million of consultants, hireage of offices in Freemans Bay in Auckland. That is an example of wasted taxpayers’ money which this Government have not done anything about. It is on their watch that, instead of taking sustainable solutions to deal with the cost of living crisis and inflation, they resort to just simply amending a band-aid solution.

That again reinforces that the cost of Government is driving up the cost of living—the cost of that Government is driving up the cost of living. That Government spends $1 billion dollars more, every single week than what occurred before they came into this House. A large majority of that is wastage which is driving up the cost of living. As a result of them failing to recognise that their actions are driving the situation which Kiwis are facing at home, they have to resort to this type of band-aid legislation in order to simply temporarily—“temporarily” is, as we’ve said, undefined or has got a new definition under this Government—increase the charges. And that is, you know, a great shame.

So we talked about the high-priced consultants in three waters and those ones that are in those lovely offices. We talk about that $2.5 billion of “no worse off” funding for three waters, we talk about that, and all of the other things. I want to talk about the cycle bridge—$51 million. I heard the member from Northcote before saying, “Look, don’t bring politics into that.” But the second sentence after that was about the cycle bridge or the harbour crossing, so a little bit ironic. The reality is that that wastage and this Government is driving up the cost of living and that is unacceptable.

As my colleague Simeon Brown said right from the start, the element of driving consistency in terms of this legislation is important. We will be supporting it, but I think Kiwis can be under no illusion that this is a band-aid solution. The cost of this Government is driving up the cost of living, Kiwis are hurting, and this Government is responsible for much of that hurt. Thank you.

It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill ensures that road users with diesel vehicles are also provided with a reduction in the cost of their transport, as we have done for those who receive a cut in fuel excise duty and half-price public transport.

I just want to comment on Simon Watts’, the previous speaker’s, comments around inflation, and note that the biggest driver of inflation is the cost of fuel around the globe. It is international-based inflation. It is the cost of transport that is driving up the cost of food in New Zealand. So the biggest step we can take is to reduce the cost of transport for Kiwi households and Kiwi businesses to address the cost of living, and we are doing something about that.

This bill reflects the Labour Government’s continued commitment to address the cost of living for Kiwi families and businesses, and I commend it to the House.

As it’s my first contribution in the House this year, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge all of those who’ve been affected by the severe floods in Auckland, and Cyclone Gabrielle right across the country. I know that there’s a whole lot of people whose lives and livelihoods have been severely affected by this storm. My heart goes out to them. I want to acknowledge that we have a responsibility—I know everyone would agree with this—in this House to make sure that those who are the most vulnerable and who are the most affected receive the support and the help that they need during this difficult time. Ultimately, we know these storms have been exacerbated—the impacts were exacerbated by human-caused climate change, which is something that the Green Party has been talking about in this House for well over 25 years now. We need to do something about it. We need to tackle all of our challenges, our economic challenges and our ecological challenges, together. Otherwise, we are not going to solve the problem.

That’s why the Green Party does not support this bill. We need long-term investment to ensure that our transport system is not so reliant on fossil fuels. If we had had that for the past 25 years, as the Green Party had been calling for, then we wouldn’t need to take these measures because people wouldn’t be so affected by fluctuations in the price of fuel. Unfortunately, if we keep taking a short-term response, which is trying to address short-term challenges with high prices of fuel, as they are doing in this bill, and, of course, with the reduction in fuel excise duty (FED), we never do anything to get a transport system that is less reliant on fossil fuels, that’s more energy-efficient, that has significant productivity benefits for New Zealand, but, most of all, that enables New Zealanders and the natural world that we live in to thrive. That’s what we need to do. We can’t just keep taking such a short-term approach.

I know one of the reasons that is cited by the Government for this approach is that it was able to be rolled out quickly. But this is, what, the third or fourth extension? It’s now almost a year since this measure was first considered. Certainly, as officials recommended and the Treasury recommended, the Government could have by now implemented a different approach that would have benefited low to middle income households in a much more direct and supportive way. As the post-implementation regulatory assessment says, the poorest households are spending considerably less money on petrol and diesel, on fuel, than the highest-income households. So the cost of this policy, which is well over $1 billion just on the reduction to fuel excise and road-user charge (RUC)—more of that is going to the very highest-income people who are the least affected by high inflation. They are the least affected by cost of living pressures.

So the Government could have afforded to give at least as much support, perhaps more, to the households who need it most at this time, and they could have done even more than that. They could have, you know, extended subsidies for public transport, made it free for key portions of the population, and increased the services in public transport. The cost of half-price public transport is like one-tenth of what the cost of the RUC and the FED discount is.

It’s hard to explain how ephemeral this benefit is. It’s basically money that we’re putting out there and it just disappears. It does nothing to help us combat the climate crisis. It does nothing to help households transition to lower-carbon ways of getting around. It does nothing to save money on fuel in the future. It’s only for this very moment, in this period of time that—and at this moment in time, we have to acknowledge that the oil companies are making record profits globally, and that’s how broken our economic system is, that, in 2022, the major oil companies made basically $100 billion in after-tax profit. A lot of that money was put towards share buy-backs, which increased the wealth of their shareholders. So, in the sense of the global economy, people are being financially rewarded for corporate behaviour, the very activities that are causing the climate crisis, that are causing floods and storms that are affecting ordinary people and taking their lives and livelihoods. It’s deranged and it’s something that we have the power to change.

We don’t have to accept this. In New Zealand, the corporate profits of fossil fuel companies are not as egregious as they are in the global scale, but, in the past year, they have posted hundreds of millions in profits. So at the very time that the public is paying, trying to alleviate cost of living and high price of fuel, Z Energy and Mobil and BP are earning hundreds of millions in profits.

So, clearly, something is out of alignment and we need to have just a slightly longer-term view on how we solve these crises. They need to be motivated. Our solutions need to be aligned with the values that people hold most dear. People care about nature. They care about the planet. They care about where they live. They want to do the right thing. They want to have options to get around, to earn a living, to see their family and friends, to live in decent conditions. All of that is possible if we don’t prioritise protecting privatised profits of big corporate fossil fuel companies and if we prioritise the wellbeing of the people in this country.

So I know that the Labour Government talks a good game on wellbeing. But the reality is that this policy falls well short. It’s counterproductive. It’s making emissions worse. Not only is it benefiting the highest-income people most but some of the benefit will be perceived by petrol companies, and it will be reflected in their profits. So, at some point, we need to stop privatising the profit and gain and socialising the losses, and we need to take a medium and long term view on how we can help people.

Is it true that not everyone can take public transport? Yes, absolutely. And that is always going to be the case. But, you know, if we had prioritised more investment in public transport and active transport, then more people would be able to get around without having to spend so much money on oil and on fossil fuels. So it is true that not everybody will benefit from half-price public transport, but we could spend money supporting the lowest-income people—the people who need it the most—we could give them more money on a weekly basis rather than spending this money subsidising fossil fuel use, of which the greatest share of the benefit will be perceived by the richest New Zealanders and the fossil fuel companies. That’s why this policy doesn’t make sense. The Green Party won’t be supporting it. We will continue to support sensible investment in a transport system that isn’t so reliant on fossil fuels, that gives people real options and real choices.

One of the ironies of, I guess, the political debate on our transport system here in New Zealand just doesn’t recognise that, essentially, decades of planning only for cars forces a huge cost on to households. It’s not about freedom. Like, at this point, if you have to use a car and you have to own a car to get around because Government hasn’t sufficiently invested in an efficient and reliable public transport system, that is a huge tax on New Zealanders because they have to spend thousands of dollars every year owning their car, parking their car, fuelling their car, insuring their car—

Simeon Brown: I love owning a car. I choose to own a car.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Simeon Brown says he chooses to own a car, but I hate to tell you this, Simeon: not everybody is in that situation. There’s a whole lot of people who don’t have a choice and it’s because of decisions made by subsequent Governments. What the Green Party is advocating for is choice. It means a community where children can get around without having to be ferried everywhere by their parents in a car where they can walk and cycle safely.

Simeon Brown: We’ve got two cars in our household.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, that’s a tax on your household, Simeon.

Simeon Brown: No, it’s not. We choose. It’s our choice.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is. You don’t even realise that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I’ll just ask—the member is straying dangerously into barracking, and if the member could please address that member by his full name.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think it’s very endearing—it’s very cute—the way that Simeon Brown and those on the right believe that it’s their freedom of choice to spend thousands and thousands of dollars that benefit automobile manufacturers and oil companies. That’s the great trick that the oil industry and the automobile industry played on society for 50 years, which is, “It’s your choice, it’s your freedom to spend 25 to 40 percent of your income on a vehicle and fuel to get around”, when, in fact, if the public invested in a high-quality public transport system, you would have choice. And, of course, some people will still use cars, and that’s fine, but we need low-carbon choices for people.

Look, Madam Speaker, forgive me: this bill has come under urgency and so it’s taken a little bit of quick reading to work out exactly where this Government has gone wrong again.

ACT supported the Government’s proposal to give motorists a break with a discount on the petrol excise duty and road-user charges (RUC) when that was proposed in March 2022. At the time, there’d been a spike in the price of fuel as a result of the dictator Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine. But it turns out that, like any crisis that has befallen New Zealand under this Labour Government, they’ve used that as an excuse—and we’ve heard members like Rachel Boyack continuing to restate this falsehood that petrol prices are still high because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

What this graph shows—when you look at the Government’s own data, their regulatory impact statement—is that indeed, in March 2022, fuel prices spiked to over $3 a litre for petrol. But like all kinds of fact-adjacent proposals offered by this Government, this graph omits another whole year of data because, in fact, the fuel price now is back to what it was before Russia invaded Ukraine. So the basis of the Labour Party’s and Minister Michael Wood’s argument that it’s necessary to give Kiwis a break in terms of the cost of living, is not justified by his own regulatory impact assessment.

Now, the problem that this bill causes is not just that it’s bad, rushed lawmaking based on half-truths and facts that are cobbled together to make a poor argument. I also want to address the fundamental problem: that the road-user charges and the petrol excise duties levied on motorists are insufficient to pay for the amount of roading that we need to deliver, not because the Government doesn’t collect enough money, but because they siphon off so much of the money collected from motorists to spend on pet projects—wasteful spending like the Auckland Harbour bike bridge: $50 million to $100 million spent on a project that engineers I know said was unfeasible when it was announced, but they persisted; or Auckland light rail, what could be a wonderful futuristic project to enable land development along that corridor in Auckland between Auckland CBD, the member for Mt Albert’s electorate, the transport Minister’s Mt Roskill electorate, and Auckland Airport even. But, again, future projects that may be sensible but we still haven’t seen the business case—and that’s a $200 million business case.

So the problem that the Government really should be solving is not, “How do we offer a cost of living sop to voters in an election year?”—which is exactly what this policy does—in fact, officials point out that if the Government wanted to address people who were in hardship because of transport costs, there are other options. There are transfer payments available, there is Working for Families, there’s energy payments, there’s all kinds of options the Government has to address the cost of living. And this policy, officials recommend, should not be one of them.

But here we are debating whether to extend the discount on road-user charges, a discount which will benefit many of my friends in the trucking and heavy transport industry, many of my friends who drive turbo-diesel Toyota Surfs on the beach—all of those people will benefit. But, unfortunately, while they might benefit today, this policy is costing $150 million a month in forgone revenue. By the end of January 2023, this policy had cost $1.3 billion in forgone revenue.

When that member Shanan Halbert, who’s the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, stood up in the House a few minutes ago and made the claim that without this policy, we wouldn’t be able to afford a new Auckland harbour crossing, I thought, “That’s the most nonsensical, incoherent thing I’ve heard since the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday.” Mr Shanan Halbert, you are the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee of Parliament and you don’t seem to understand the link between the need to raise revenue—not discount revenue, raise revenue—in order to deliver infrastructure.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate, so find another way of expressing himself.

SIMON COURT: Madam Chair, people watching at home—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Or “Madam Speaker” would do.

SIMON COURT: Madam Speaker, people watching at home must be able to tell how incensed I am as the ACT transport spokesperson about this appalling piece of legislation.

So this takes around $1.3 billion in the last year from the National Land Transport Fund, which is required to be made up by borrowing. That’s kicking the can down the road to future citizens—to people who might not even be born yet—to pay back the $1.3 billion that this Government’s already wasted on this policy.

So what would ACT do? Well, firstly, we would stop lecturing New Zealanders about whether they should be driving less and walking or cycling more. We would stop lecturing New Zealanders about a climate emergency when this Government—in cahoots with the Greens—have failed to deliver the climate adaptation bill, even though James Shaw has been the climate Minister for five years.

And now we face the real problem. New Zealand’s transportation network has been devastated by flooding and storms. This Government, previous Governments, have not put sufficient money in to upgrade our networks and make them more resilient. When you drive on new highways like Transmission Gully, when you drive on new highways like the Waikato Expressway, you’ll see what a resilient highway looks like. If Waka Kotahi let us, motorists would also be able to drive on the brand new, unopened Pūhoi to Warkworth highway on State Highway 1 north of Auckland. But for contractual reasons, Waka Kotahi won’t let motorists on it.

So what’s the problem to solve? How do we raise sufficient funds to deliver a safe, efficient—that means, get where you’re going at a decent clip—and resilient transport network funded by motorists, the people who use it, in a way that means what you pay for, you get. In some cases, that might mean that we need to apply road pricing, what people in the olden days used to call “tolls”. Imagine that: you could toll the road like the Auckland Harbour Bridge and then you’d get a new harbour bridge.

Now, that institutional memory appears to have been forgotten by this Government and its officials, but ACT hasn’t forgotten. In fact, in our solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature, we make the case for road pricing. We don’t just make the case for road pricing; we make the case as to how in five short years, New Zealand could transition from road-user charges—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to come back more closely to the bill. It is in order to make passing reference to other matters in context, but the main purpose of this bill is to address the first reading of this transport RUC bill.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So it’s possible, in five short years, to transition from road-user charges and fuel excise duties to a system of electronic road pricing. This has been done elsewhere in the world. The ACT Party proposes that that should be a much better alternative to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I’ve just asked the member to come back more closely to the bill. This is the second time I’m inviting him to do so.

SIMON COURT: Madam Speaker. So in the regulatory impact assessment, officials identified a number of different options. And, of course, road pricing—charging people for the roads they drive on—is in the mix.

Now, it’s fair to say that when you rush legislation into the House under urgency, and it’s so urgent—I want to draw the House’s attention to this—that in the section “Constraints on analysis”, officials point out that the commissioning was narrow in scope and advice, and needed to be provided quickly. The advice was sought on lowering petrol excise and road-user charges—well, that’s remarkable because the Government announced the reduction in taxes on road-user charges and petrol excise duty over a year ago. Yet, it appears the request for information from officials was made very, very shortly before this policy was announced; this extension on road-user charges and fuel excise duties.

So that would lead me to conclude, in fact, the policy is poorly thought-out. The costs have not been considered adequately. The benefits are very limited except to reduce the cost of petrol to motorists in an election year. And, for that reason, ACT will not be supporting this bill. It does not address our long-term needs.

It’s always a rare and special privilege to follow on from the ACT Party in taking a call on this bill. The ACT Party member would have one, who is listening to his contribution, believe that the largesse and public goodness of the oil companies would forego their profits in a time of national need, which would mean that we wouldn’t need this legislation to go through, which is clearly, clearly false, and that the requirement for the Government to take steps to ensure that people who need to use vehicles to get about their daily business, or to transport goods and services around the country, do not need support to do that by this Government—and it’s clearly, clearly wrong.

So we know the reason for this bill: to extend the reduction in road-user charges to ensure that those people who do need to get to work, need to get to school, need to get about the business can do so, and that transporters, people who freight our goods and services around the country can do so in a way that actually reduces the costs to New Zealanders during this cost of living crisis.

I do want to make one comment. It would be remiss of me not to recognise today’s the 12th anniversary of the earthquakes in Christchurch and in Canterbury, and my colleagues and I share with our people in Canterbury the thoughts of 12 years on from that day.

Just my final thoughts. I do want to kind of pose the question: what kind of life experiences could have created someone as cynical as Simeon Brown, who made some extraordinary statements in this House today, who said that—

Simeon Brown: I’m the least cynical MP.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Ha! Well, I’ve yet to find evidence of that, Mr Brown. When saying that the National Party would support this bill, he didn’t find it necessary to have this bill; wanted us to do more for the folk who were impacted by the cost of living, but didn’t believe in this bill. So, on those final thoughts, I commend this bill to the House.

Chris Penk—five minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As some others have done, I just wish to briefly acknowledge those who are in dire straits even now still as a result of recent extreme weather events throughout New Zealand, including in my own electorate. I’ll welcome the opportunity to speak more fully on that subject in the House later.

On the subject of this bill, the rosy—excuse me—the road-user charges temporary RUC—

Hon Members: “Rosy”.

CHRIS PENK: I’m looking at this through rose-tinted spectacles, Madam Speaker, because, actually, it’s been a long time now since this first came in. I fear I’m in danger of misleading the House in even using the word “temporary” in relation to it, but it’s in the title of the bill, so at the risk of incurring your wrath—or, indeed, that of your replacement—I note that that is at least what it says on the tin.

The can is being kicked down the road. Eventually, the can will fall into a pothole, no doubt. I’ll finish this brief contribution with the reflection that, as someone much wiser than me once observed, there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary solution, to which we might also say in this day and age that there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary Government programme. So this extension of an extension of an extension we have supported on the basis as set out by our transport spokesperson, Simeon Brown.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thanks for your support.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll make a brief call, also, on this Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2). As is obvious in this bill, the Government’s obvious top priority is, simply, helping New Zealanders with the cost of living amid what is a heightened inflation around the world—it’s not novel to New Zealand; it’s something that many people are experiencing around the world, but there are practical, sensible things that we can do as a Government to help alleviate that pain for people. So, on the basis of that, I commend this bill to the House.

I don’t know if it was picked up by Hansard, but the Hon Willie Jackson here just said “Thank you for your support.”, and I think that needs to be echoed throughout the House. This is a bill of support for those who are going through the tough times right now in terms of the cost of living. We know that reducing road-user charges and we know that reducing petrol excise actually helps with inflationary pressures as well on our economy right now, so this is a good bill. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

I call on the Hon David Pen—Bennett.

I thought you were going to say “Penk” there for a second, Madam Speaker. Jeez!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Sorry about that—the Hon David Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I know he’s very rosy, but there’s a difference! But thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I’d like to also acknowledge those people that are in the regions. Our coastal regions have really done it tough in the last few weeks and months with the weather conditions. What they’ve had to deal with has been tremendously difficult, and we don’t understand that as much as they will, not being there and being part of it. But we think of them, and I’d just like to thank the Government for what they’ve done so far in the gestures of infrastructure to make sure that they’ve got some support there. Also, it’s unfortunate that the new Prime Minister and deputy aren’t here, this is my first speech in the House since they’ve been given the roles, so I’d just like to congratulate them on their roles and wish them all the best, and—[Interruption] I know. It’s a new leaf, but anyway—but it’s not going to last.

Hon Willie Jackson: Sit down now.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Willie, I’ll come back to you, mate. But, no, well done to them, and congratulations. It’s an honour for anyone to be in those roles, so that’s great.

But to this bill here, you know, when we look at the transport sector in New Zealand, it’s a really important sector when we consider what’s actually going on in our coastal regions at the moment. One of the big things we’re finding is that our infrastructure has been devastated by those natural disasters, and, one way or the other, we have to deal with that. There’s going to be the replacement of certain bridges, there’ll be the replacement of certain roads, and there will be new roads that will be built. But, fundamentally, New Zealand needs to look at its infrastructure in total, and the whole point of why we have road-user charges and the whole point of why we have excise tax is to enable the country to build the right infrastructure, especially our roading and rail networks, which actually enable New Zealand to function.

I just want to take one example and look at that for a moment, and that is north of Auckland to Whangārei. That road has been out of order since the first rains that we had. It is just not acceptable that one of our biggest cities—Whangārei—is, effectively, isolated from Auckland when it’s not that far away. There have been plans to build a four-lane road from Auckland to Whangārei for generations and they have been debated in and out of this House, and we don’t do it. Like, my political career has been staked on getting the road from Hamilton to Auckland, and we did get it, but the next stage is actually Auckland to Whangārei. That’s an important stage, like it is from Hamilton to Tauranga.

If we don’t have that key infrastructure, we abandon those cities and those communities. At the moment, people are having to take a coastal route, going around through small towns like Waipū and Mangawhai, to get back to Auckland.

Hon Willie Jackson: And whose fault is that?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: The fault is the Labour Party’s, which cancelled the roads of national significance, because the roads of national significance would have created that four-laning to Whangārei, and that is the fault of Willie Jackson and his team. So when he says, “Whose fault is that?”, it’s directly that Government’s. They have taken money out of building roading infrastructure. They do not believe in roads. The Green Party will say it honestly and objectively, and the Labour Party will do it. They have taken money out to put in their pet rail projects in Auckland City. They have not delivered for New Zealand’s infrastructure when they had the point and the chance to do so.

I know we have to rebuild in certain places, but we also need to futureproof our infrastructure, and the Labour Party failed in the last five years. It cancelled the infrastructure that would have saved places like Whangārei from what they’re going through now. It cancelled the Cambridge extension to Piarere. It cancelled those northern roads in Tauranga. It cancelled the roads that would have been vital for our coastal cities and growth.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): If the member would like to come back to this bill, thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, the bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —is about the road-user charges and excise taxes—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes, yes—discuss that.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —and the whole point of those is to build infrastructure.

That’s what you do with the roading. It’s not there to spend on consultants. It’s not there to think about what could be a greater vision for a New Zealand that doesn’t have cars. That’s what the Labour Party and the Greens have used the transport budget for. They’ve politicised Waka Kotahi, they’ve taken it away from doing the structural developments that are needed for the infrastructure of New Zealand, and that has been the crisis that we are seeing now, today.

There’s always going to be natural disasters. There’s always going to be things we have to rebuild. But we could have made sure that the people of Whangārei were actually given the ability to link in to Auckland if we’d built that road. That’s the opportunity that’s in front of the National Party, when they get in at the end of the year: to bring back the roads of national significance and to bring back that infrastructure that actually stabilises our economy in some of the most vulnerable parts of the country.

Another example is from Napier to Hastings. For so long, those communities have only asked for a decent roading network between those cities, and for so long this House has said no. If we had given them an infrastructure there, that would actually have helped them, no doubt, in these kinds of situations.

There’s the connections between the Waikato and the Hawke’s Bay, for example. That’s an arterial route that is vital for this country. All that Government could do was reduce the speed limit to 80 kilometres on it. It couldn’t get to the position where it invested in the infrastructure of that road; it just wanted to slow it down. Now, that road is one of the ones that has been affected by the cyclone and other events.

So this bill is a symptom of a Government that has failed on infrastructure. It’s a Government—

Hon Willie Jackson: You won’t be supporting it then, will you?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, I am going to support it.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, I thought you weren’t going to support it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, and the reason I’m supporting it is because—actually, this is the second thing I was going to get on to. It’s actually good for New Zealand in the sense that when the productive part of New Zealand finally gets some money out of this place—because all this Government does is spend money on social spending—at some point, the productive sector of New Zealand is actually going to get their taxes back through some money being spent on infrastructure. Well, they’re not going to get their taxes back; they’re going to get the borrowing that the Government has made in actual infrastructure. The rest of the time, the Government borrows just for social spending.

We don’t actually invest in the infrastructure of New Zealand, and the country suffers as a result. So at least—at least—this is actually going to help the builders, plumbers, farmers, and family people out there that actually can use the roading network, because at least it’s an investment in infrastructure, even if the Government is borrowing for it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member has got two minutes to come back to the road-user charges amendment bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK, Madam Speaker. This bill is a demonstration of a missed opportunity for infrastructure in New Zealand, and I think of the people in Whangārei as a great example. They need that four-laning. Our country needs that four-laning.

The Labour Party has said no to roads. The Labour Party has an aversion to building roading infrastructure. The Green Party does not like roads, either. It’s time they woke up and understood that in New Zealand, we need to build that infrastructure.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to make a short call on this very important bill. We hear a lot of moaning and whinging from the other side of the House about the fact that they believe we’re not doing enough to assist with the cost of living. But whenever we do, they object to everything we do—whether it’s objecting to the raising of the minimum wage, whether it’s about public transport and the halving of the fees, or, in this case, on the reduction of the road-user charges. The fuel excise reductions were really helpful for people that live on my side of the world. For a household with a petrol vehicle, for example, if a person had to fill up each week, they would save roughly about $36 per month. Now, that is very good money for a lot of people that don’t have a lot to spend. So, again, this bill will help people with the cost of living—and why there is so much noise objecting to that from the other side of the House, I have no idea, but I commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading