Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 8, “Abolition of regional fuel tax”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now in the committee stage of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. This bill has two parts. Part 1 deals with the purpose of the bill; the repeal of the statutory framework for establishing and operating the regional fuel tax; and it has some transitionary provisions, in particular clauses 6 and 7, which amend the current Auckland regional fuel tax order and reduce the list of capital projects in which revenue from the regional fuel tax scheme can be sent from 14 to three.

As has been raised in earlier debates on this bill, it reduces the number of those particular capital projects down to the three that are being prioritised, following discussions with the Mayor of Auckland, which are the Eastern Busway and the Reeves Road Flyover, the Auckland City Rail Link trains and stabling, and local roading improvements.

Kia orana, Madam Chair. Can I thank the Minister for Transport for those opening comments. I have a number of questions that I will be work through and would appreciate the Minister’s attention in terms of addressing those. I take his point around what’s currently proposed in clauses 6 and 7, which relate to a number of projects, and I am aware there’s certainly a few that I would like to ask some questions of the Minister about. I know that many on this side of the Chamber also have some questions around that. I think it’s largely related because of their local knowledge—I’m sure it’s largely related because of their local knowledge in the Auckland area.

But if I could start in terms of what is proposed under clause 4 of the bill, which seeks to repeal the framework that is in place that allows for a regional fuel tax (RFT) to be in place. I look at what is currently within Subpart 3 of Part 2 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003, and the proposal under clause 4 is, effectively, to repeal Subpart 3 in its entirety. Within the existing legislation under Subpart 3, there is section 65C, and that relates to the requirements relating to a regional fuel tax scheme. When one looks at subsection (2) of that, there is a time frame of a maximum of 10 years, which is fine. But there is also, under subsection (3), the direction that the maximum rate of regional fuel tax is 10c per litre. My question to the Minister in relation to that is whether or not there was any thinking around whether a lower rate, and potentially a rate of zero, could have been applied, and, if so, why that, perhaps, was not an option that has been explored so that there is a framework for some point in the future.

The other question that I have relates to the same Subpart, and it is section 65J, which relates to the ability of the Minister of Finance and the responsible Minister—in this case, the Minister of Transport—concerning a proposed RFT scheme. But, within that section, there is, obviously, an opportunity to establish or to replace a scheme, but there is also an option to vary an existing regional fuel tax scheme. So my question to the Minister is whether or not—well, there is an option around varying the scheme, so why, perhaps, wasn’t that the particular course of action or avenue that the Minister sought to take?

If I can just now turn to clause 5 of the bill and particularly paragraph (b). This relates to Schedule 1AA of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and that there would be a new Schedule 1 of the Act, which would be the last part of the Act, and whether or not the necessary consequential amendments have been fully identified, and, if so, where one might find them. I know that there are a number of proposed amendments that followed that are further on in Schedule 3, so we will get to that when we come to that particular point in time. But I did wonder whether there was a particular place where all the other necessary consequential amendments that one assumes falls outside of this Act and might fall in other pieces of legislation, whether they be primary or secondary—whether or not that could be captured.

I’ve got a number of other questions which I’m happy to continue to work through in terms of my time. The next one is around clause 7, and that relates to Schedule 2 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Now, I think it would be helpful for the Minister to outline for the committee what the rationale is in terms of maintaining three of those projects within the bill, and what is the rationale for, effectively, dispensing with all the remaining projects that are outlined in the order. I think that would be helpful because it would set some sort of tone or scene around some of the questions that, certainly, I have about a number of the projects in the order—and the order is the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax Scheme—Auckland) Order 2018. It does identify a range of projects, and they are quite specific, which I will come to. But, I think, for a start, that might be a good place for the Minister to perhaps consider some of those questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to follow on from those questions, but I would have actually quite liked the answers to those before I ask these questions, because they may have clarified and it would have deepened the dialogue. However, one of the questions I want to know, and I think most New Zealanders—most Aucklanders, definitely, and definitely most people from Mount Albert—want to know, is why: why are these ones picked; why not others?

So I would like to know what the process was that you went through to select projects, and you’ve said it was in consultation with the mayor, but one of those projects is obviously really important to the people that live in your area. So there’s an issue of perceived conflict there, and I want to know what was the process that you went through for deciding that those were the projects that were important, and how did you deal with the fact—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You ask the Minister because Auckland’s not in my patch and he will have the knowledge.

Sorry, Madam Chair. Yes, you are quite right. What was the process that the Minister went through in deciding how to deal with an issue where, in fact, he works and he is the elected MP in a particular area, and one of those projects is favoured in this situation? A related question is: what was the cost-benefit analysis that was gone through, because my understanding from my previous interaction with the Minister is that that is something that he prides himself on? What was the cost-benefit analysis in deciding that these projects would happen and not others?

There’s also a question which won’t surprise him that I am asking about the issue over safety. So one of the big holes in funding is the one that will affect the issues over what he calls speed bumps and I often call raised pedestrian crossings. There was another speech given today in the House which talked about the cost of each death, because as horrible as it feels, there are numbers, often, that people use when they talk about the cost of those deaths in terms of what it does to our society, and obviously I want to acknowledge there’s a much greater loss than any cost when we’re talking about the loss of life or the injury of somebody. But what work was done on that when the decision was made to decide on several different projects and disband with others?

I have a patch which has put a lot of projects that are in the list that won’t be getting funding, and I’ve already raised with the Minister in my speech earlier that I’m concerned about some of the impacts on my local patch that will affect people. So I’m concerned about the impacts around schooling, I’m concerned about the impacts over congestion in those areas, and I’m also concerned—I’ll just note one at this present time: the Carrington Road development. So I can see that that has been suspended, that work around that area. Now, Carrington Road is going to take thousands of houses, and so if you don’t work in that area any more, if the projects are not completed in that area, or the funding is under threat, then that area is one of the areas where intensification can happen without a lot of consequence as long as you make sure that the roads are good and the infrastructure’s good.

So what happens with that area, for example, and why would that not be given priority by a Government that says it wants intensification, and, in fact, has scrapped a whole lot of rules that meant there’d be more spread of intensification? This is a project that takes so many people, and it’s going to be really important that they feel safe and that the whole area isn’t just totally clogged up. So I know that my constituents will be asking me on Tuesday night at the Mt Albert Residents’ Association meeting what the impact of this is on them in terms of the development. So I would like an answer to those questions and I’d appreciate them—the sooner the better—so I can ask proper follow-up questions of the Minister and this can be a real informative debate.

Look, thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. Tangi Utikere, he asked about the question of whether any thinking was done about reducing the rate or keeping the framework for the future. The answer to that was: we campaigned on removing the regional fuel tax, and we were elected with a mandate to do that, and this legislation is delivering on that mandate, so we did not consider any other change other than to remove the legislation in its entirety—which is what this is doing.

In regards to the question around different projects, the Eastern Busway is under construction, the City Rail Link trains are already under order, and the priority for the Government is to improve our roading network. So those are the three priorities which have been identified for the remaining funding.

In terms of the issue in regards to clause 5(b), it’s a standard Parliamentary Counsel Office wording. It’s there to enable renumbering, should any other bill insert a new part into the transitional provision Schedule at around the same time as this bill. That is the answer to that specific question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t think I can table my HOP card, but I’d like to come close, as somebody who has caught the bus and the train, has cycled, and has driven in Auckland over the last few months.

💬 Hon Simeon Brown: I’ve got mine too. There it is.

So just because I come from this area doesn’t mean I don’t—oh, we can table another one. Jolly good!

I’ve got a number of questions for the Minister about the projects in Auckland that will be cancelled because of the decision to remove the regional fuel tax. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a little bit of quiet on this side, please.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Well, we’re just hearing moral high ground speeches. They get responses.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, but I’m struggling to hear the member. Interjections are fine, but not so much condensed interjection all at once.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, does the Minister believe that vehicles running red lights cause injuries to people driving cars, passengers in cars, people on bikes, and people crossing roads? Following on from that, does he believe that red-light cameras reduce the likelihood of drivers playing roulette through a red light? Thirdly, do speeds in residential areas—do higher speeds—increase the severity of injuries, and, if so, how does reducing speed humps address the health and safety of New Zealanders and Aucklanders in particular?

The next question is: I believe this Government is bringing in congestion charging at some point; why not wait until the congestion charging is ready before removing the regional fuel tax? I accept that congestion charging may be a fairer way of doing it.

Then, finally, what consultation on the projects that should be dropped was there with health, ambulance, Cycle Auckland, Living Streets Aotearoa, or any of the other knowledgeable organisations? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to begin my contribution, given that we are discussing Part 1 of the bill, which basically dismantles the structure for the Auckland regional fuel tax—I do want to focus on the fact that our largest city in New Zealand has needed for quite some time now an integrated, multimodal rapid transit network, an integrated network. That’s really what this particular fuel tax, in terms of what it was going to be contributing to, the projects that it would be contributing to—that is what it was feeding into.

So, in this part, when we’re talking about dismantling the structure that would contribute to what we believe, on this side of the Chamber, our largest city needs, it is incredibly disappointing, firstly that it’s being dismantled at all given that what we really need is for us to be able to get around in a way that is easier, for us to be able to provide greater access to businesses across Auckland by improving the public transport and other modes of transport across Auckland. We absolutely need to focus on reducing congestion, and we need to lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately, what this bill does is dismantle a structure that was contributing towards progress on all of those fronts. So it is disappointing, firstly, that this is even going through; and, secondly, it is even more disappointing that it’s going through in the way that it is, under urgency, which means that we are here speaking on behalf of people—Aucklanders and others, I would argue—who would be impacted by the changes made in this bill who don’t have a say because all stages are going through under urgency.

I know, also, that there have been arguments made over years based on, for example, an OECD report which was back in 2015 that showed that in lost productivity, just due to congestion in Auckland, we have lost productivity to the tune of $1.3 billion. That is an issue. That is a massive issue for us in Auckland but, I would argue, for the entire country as well. That report—again, nine years ago—showed that Auckland and Wellington are the second and third most congested cities in Australasia, following Sydney. So what we really need, again, I would argue, is an integrated, multimodal rapid transit transport network, and this bill flies in the face of that.

Looking just at the Order in Council, I mean, we know that this will lead to the fact that 14 projects that would have been funded through the Auckland regional fuel tax will now be reduced to three projects. So I, like other colleagues on this side of the Chamber, would like to ask the Minister specific questions, because a number of those—whether it comes to walking and cycling routes—fall into the area that I live in, in Auckland. I’d like some answers about what will replace that, because that’s the other point that I want to make through this. Dismantling the structure actually means that this is yet another step that this Government takes to repeal something with absolutely nothing to replace it with.

So we’ve got, if you look at the number of projects that will be potentially cancelled—because we know that the Auckland mayor has already asked for a number of these projects to stop. We know, as I mentioned—actually, no, I didn’t mention previously—the cancellation of this tax will leave a shortfall in transport funding for Auckland of $1.2 billion over the next four years. We know, also, that dismantling this structure and therefore scrapping this tax will mean that Auckland Council’s ability to borrow will be significantly reduced. It will be reduced by $810 million a year. So the mayor has already said that a number of these projects are already put on hold, likely to be scrapped. All we know, given that one of the reasons behind this particular move, according to this Government, was to reduce the cost of living—we know that the other option is to put up rates for Aucklanders, which means an increase in cost of living for Auckland as well.

So I’d really like to know: what is the Minister going to replace a number of these projects with, whether it’s in safety measures or walking and cycling routes? What will replace the dismantling of this particular tax? Because, again, given that the regulatory impact statement has been dispensed with because this is in the Government’s 100-day plan, we don’t actually have an independent analysis of the impact that this will have on the people who will be most affected by the lack of those projects. There’s 11 projects that will be scrapped as a result of this dismantling of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an important topic for Aucklanders. I stated in my speech my concern of the Minister’s decision today to ram this through in urgency. I believe that it does require consultation with Aucklanders over and beyond an election, because the greater question in front of us is actually: how do we invest in a modern transport infrastructure for a global city that will have a population of 2 million people come 2030? So I suspect that this might be one of a number of questions that I have this evening.

My first line of questioning is actually around our relationship with Auckland Council. So part of the original establishment of this was looking collectively with Auckland Council: how we are going to invest in transport infrastructure for Auckland, Tāmaki-makau-rau? We, of course, have had two mayors over that time that expect different things from Government, and our most recent mayor is very keen not to have Wellington involved in decision making of Auckland. Personally, I believe there’s an in-between there that this piece of legislation actually achieved, which is some sense of partnership.

So one of my questions for the Minister this evening is about what consultation did he have with Mayor Wayne Brown in regards to this piece of legislation and some of the decisions or decisions of those impacted projects? But, particularly around moving forward, what might be his intention or how he sees that partnership working moving forward, where the impact of this legislation means that there is a significant shortfall for Auckland Council to fund for their future transport infrastructure?

So, from a relationship perspective, what is the current relationship status with Mayor Wayne Brown and Auckland Council as a result? Has he had discussions with key councillors over this particular piece of legislation? What were their views that informed his decision, both on repealing the regional fuel tax but also the impacted projects and how there became a priority list of the ones that were supported and the ones that weren’t? Have there been recent conversations with the mayor up until today that help guide that particular way forward for the Minister? Because the projects, as I understand, still need to continue, as well as a number of others across the city.

Because I go back to quite a short and sharp media statement from Mayor Wayne Brown, which was straight to the thick of the cut and thrust of this piece of legislation, which is to put on hold 12 transport projects that were believed to be going ahead; that had tagged funding against them; that there was a means to an end to achieve a better transport system and infrastructure across walking and cycling, across active transport, across all modes of transport in Auckland; that created more options available for Aucklanders in that.

So coming back to my original question, I think it is important that there is a good working relationship between central and local government. I’m concerned in this discussion that that has impacted on this relationship when it comes to achieving the common goal. No matter which party that we’re within, we know that we need to achieve certainty in the infrastructure sector and start to build a pipeline of at least 10 years, if not more.

I have been with the Minister at many a conference and a panel where collectively we have talked about how we achieve, politics aside, the certainty for the sector. But uncertainty is created for Auckland Council as a result. It’s Auckland Council that is impacted by what will be the dissatisfaction of Aucklanders. I’d like the Minister to explain how he will be supporting Auckland Council with that fallout as a result of the cancelled projects as per Mayor Wayne Brown’s media statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank members for their questions. There were a number of questions from Celia Wade-Brown in relation to speed bumps, red-light cameras, and consultation. I mean, ultimately, this bill focuses on the cost of living for New Zealanders, and we are reducing the regional fuel tax to address that issue.

In terms of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, she asked how we would replace the dollars. I mean, ultimately, for the rest of those projects which we are not continuing funding for, of course, Auckland Council is able to progress those. If they’re on local roading corridors, they are able to progress those. They just won’t have regional fuel tax funding to support them, and that’s a conversation that the council can have with Auckland ratepayers.

The issue in terms of what consultation was had with other organisations—I think that was Celia Wade-Brown again—ultimately, New Zealanders voted for this Government, and we are delivering on our campaign promises.

Shanan Halbert asked about consultation with Auckland Council. I spoke to the mayor on a couple of occasions. These are projects that are of joint priority, and so we are ensuring that the remaining funds, of which there are over $300 million, go towards those three priority projects.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I firstly thank the Minister for answering a couple of my questions. I am disappointed to hear that the rationale for not looking at sections 65C and 65J is because of the campaign approach, whereas it appears—unless the Minister advises the committee otherwise—that the same outcome for Aucklanders could none the less have been achieved by engaging those two sections of the Land Transport Management Act. But I note his response here.

I do think there is still actually an outstanding question that my colleague Helen White referred to, and it does relate to the inclusion of Project 4 in the order. This relates to the Minister’s own electorate, and I do think that the committee does deserve a response around the perception of conflicts of interest, given that the Minister is the member for Pakuranga and this is a project that would obviously be of huge benefit at the expense of other Aucklanders if this was to proceed.

I invite the—well, I’m interested in the Minister’s response, and my question to the Minister is whether he still stands by the cost of living argument when the departmental disclosure statement very clearly indicates that in some cases, motorists will be around $1.87 better off a week, and the real difference that that would actually make to entertain the cost of living pressures. Now, in my earlier contribution today, I’d indicated that I’d had a look at what one could get for $1.87 at a supermarket in Auckland, and what you could get is a 227-gram tin of chunky pineapple. Now, is that really addressing the cost of living pressures, as this Minister and his Government actually think? So I invite the Minister to reflect on whether or not that still rings true—that $1.87 a week is going to offset the cost of living pressures that households are facing.

There are 14 projects that are suggested to be either retained or dispensed with under this bill, and each in their own right is going to have a huge impact either way on the communities in Auckland. So it’s certainly our intention on this side of the Chamber to be exploring and asking questions about each and every one of those projects, because that is what we need to do, given this is a bill that is being progressed under urgency. I do think it’s important to make sure that—and the whole point of the committee of the whole House stage; that aside—we look at the clauses as they come, and so I do have a number of questions, which I’ll return to now.

So the first is in relation to clause 18 within Schedule 1, and it relates to the agency advice. There’s a time frame there that, basically, indicates that the agency would continue to provide the Minister of Finance and the responsible Minister with advice, and that advice is on request. My question for the Minister would be two things: one is the anticipated frequency of that advice that’s being sought and whether the provision in clause 18 is sufficient, and the second is that there are two components as to what that advice must be about. One is in relation to Subpart 3, which I referred to earlier, and there are a number of different sections there that start with definition and that go right through to sort of tax implications, and the other is in relation to—I guess that’s quite broad in the sense of its relation to this scheme as it relates to the Auckland regional fuel tax itself. So my question for the Minister, or the second part of that question, is whether he is able to foreshadow the type of advice that might be sought—if this bill is successful—to transition across from a functioning regional fuel tax to a transitional period.

My second question relates to clause 19, and this is something that I’ve raised in the House previously this year. It relates to what the expectation is around the information that is to be retained. I raised this question when the House was considering changes to Te Aka Whai Ora, and my question is relevant to this situation as well because it’s about the requirement for records to be kept and for returns to be made. So my question in relation to clause 19 is about whether there’s an expectation as to what happens to that information once this particular bill is passed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could the member please be specific about clause 19? We’re just trying to locate it.

Yes, certainly. So I am referring to—

💬 Joseph Mooney: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And I’m taking Tangi Utikere’s call, thank you.

Madam Chair, thank you. This is relation to Schedule 1, and this is the Minister’s proposed new insertion of new Part 5 in Schedule 1AA. It’s headed “Part 5”, and I’m referring to what was originally clause 18, now clause 19. Is that OK?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yep—thank you.

So in relation to the nature of the information, obviously there’s archival use, but what’s happening there—and whether there’s actually a requirement, once that information is filed, that that can be disposed of, or whether there is a requirement for that to be retained, as in other parts of the parent Act, where there is a requirement to retain some information for, I think, four years, or thereabouts. So I’m interested in what the obligation is on those who are filing the returns and whether there is an expectation there.

My other question is in relation to clause 20, and this is about whether or not there are provisions, or any either flexibility or proposed leeway in the Minister’s mind in approaching this clause, or whether the provision provides for some flexibility around that, particularly around the payment of tax that might be required post-disbursal. So if this bill is successful and this scheme comes to an end, what are the requirements in terms of time frames? I know that they’re listed there, but if there are some extenuating circumstances that might exist from time to time, what provisions exist—or whether the Minister has thought about this and has decided that there doesn’t need to be a provision around flexibility or leeway. I’ve got a number of other questions, but for now I’ll leave it there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s a number of good questions there from the member in relation to Schedule 1—clauses 18, 19, and 20. All of this in new Part 5 is about the transition provisions in terms of ensuring that when the regional fuel tax comes to an end, Auckland Council is effectively paid out for all of the revenues that are collected prior to that date and ensuring that there is good reporting on that, and making sure they receive the accurate amount.

In terms of the agency’s advice, in clause 18, all the advice that the New Zealand Transport Agency is required to provide the Minister currently, continues to be provided as the scheme is wound down. That relates to collection, auditing, administrating rebates, transferring net revenue, and monitoring revenue, cost, fuel prices, and volumes. That’s, effectively, what that’s all about. Then, as I said, clause 19 is about making sure the fuel companies are paying the correct amount.

So these are transitional provisions. It’s all very sensible—when you’re changing the law and you’re transitioning to a new system, this is all about making sure that there is accuracy in terms of the amounts which have been received, making sure that they are dispersed, and making sure that any people who are entitled to rebates are still able to receive them. Of course, you might have fuelled up on 29 June but you might not process that application until a little bit later, and so you’ll notice that there is also provision there in relation to the rebate scheme as well. So it’s all very sensible stuff, which I’m sure the Opposition is very happy to support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is a brand-new line of questions and I’ve taken some guidance from Speaker Tolley’s ruling encouraging me and speakers like me to keep my contributions focused. So this will be a very focused set of six questions in which I am asking the Minister to engage with me in a series of questions and answers between members and Ministers, following the changes in standing orders which came into effect in 2020 when Speaker Tolley made the ruling at 79/4 of the Speakers’ rulings.

The first question is: currently, wholesale fuel distributors pay this portion of tax to NZTA, who recover collection costs and then distribute the revenue to agencies responsible for the projects to be funded by the tax, specifically Auckland Council. Now that the Minister is proposing these changes, how will he make sure that the savings that the bill seeks to provide to Aucklanders are passed on to drivers who would otherwise have been paying 10c extra that would have been collected by wholesale fuel distributors?

Just to give the Minister a minute to consider my question, I will ask the second one, which is: who will benefit from those savings the most? And that should be read in the context of replacing some of the costs that were raised by the Government from the Auckland fuel tax with the $50 fee increase in drivers’ registrations of their vehicles.

My question here is: have we got this right about who pays for the benefit that people are receiving? Is the benefit being passed on mostly to people who drive great distances and then borne by people who register their car every year? Are we, in fact, passing on costs that would otherwise not have been borne by people like my 90-year-old father who drives his car very little but needs to register it every year, and subsidising those people like me who drive great distances because of their work and to get around Auckland? Those are the first two questions of six.

I thank the member for the questions. In terms of the question around passing on costs, there is a range of regulatory powers that MBIE have in terms of making sure that happens, and it’s very similar to what happened when the last Government reduced the fuel excise—those expectations remain. In terms of who will receive the benefits—people who drive their cars. There will be 10c plus the corresponding 1.5c a litre in GST that will be reduced from people’s fuel bills; they’ll benefit through this saving.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The third question, then, is: what information about pricing will be collected and where will it be collected? Is this an expectation that the Minister has of the wholesale fuel distributors, or is that information that will be collected by the New Zealand Transport Agency? The question here is about how the Minister intends to ensure that those cost savings are, in fact, passed on to consumers.

I will ask the fourth question as well, which is in relation to his answer about this benefiting all drivers. Has he had any advice about the impact of the regulation he’s proposing, given that it would seem that it would incentivise drivers to behave in different ways? It passes costs on from drivers who would be driving long distances to drivers who are simply registering the car every year but are not driving those long distances.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to begin with a story. It should only take a moment or so, but I am going to ask your indulgence for it, Madam Chair, because I then do want to get into a very specific question—

💬 Grant McCallum: Is it a funny story?

Well, who knows what you will think? So it will take me about a minute thirty, then I will get to the actual particular point of it.

This goes back a long time, when Trevor Mallard was Minister of Education—so I’m afraid, Minister, this might have been before you were born, or perhaps not; it’s hard to tell.

💬 Hon Simeon Brown: No, no. He was—

Not quite, not quite. OK, but when Trevor Mallard was Minister of Education—

💬 Hon Simeon Brown: I remember he shut down a lot of schools.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No interjections from here, thank you.

Ha, ha!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Don’t bait the Minister, because he’s not allowed to come back at you at that.

There was a process where a lot of country schools were being closed down—small schools with very small roles—and, of course, there was a lot of trouble around that from communities. Communities were concerned about it. But one of the things that Trevor Mallard did—or one of his key staffers did—was they went and drove the routes around every single one of the schools that was proposed for closure. So there were some schools which, even though the role had fallen a long way and there was another school perhaps within a few kilometres, were kept open because it was simply too far to ask a small child to travel on a bus or there was a road that was too dangerous to cross over to drop us in a car.

Now, the point of that is not—well, it was a great thing for Trevor Mallard to do, but he acquired the local knowledge for each change he was making so that he could justify it. He really engaged with the changes that he was making. Now, that leads me to the question I want to ask, because a lot of the changes that are being made—the projects that are being discontinued—are very local, and they might matter only to the local people but they matter a great deal to those local people. There are a number here on this list of projects that I want to ask about. I’m going to start with in Project 8, which is being discontinued, and I want to understand why the Minister felt that this was suitable for discontinuing.

The particular intersection that concerns me on these safety concerns—it was some safety improvements to the intersection of Blockhouse Bay Road and Chalmers Street. Now, Minister, if you drive up along Blockhouse Bay Road—I have a difficult sense of direction sometimes, but Blockhouse Bay Road does run more or less North-South—you’re running, actually, from the Waitematā to the Mānukau in a particular place. As you’re driving towards the Mānukau, up towards the intersection with Chalmers Street, it’s a very narrow intersection; it carries a lot of traffic. The road engineers have managed to squeeze a turn-right lane in, as well as a straight-through lane, but it’s a four-way intersection. It goes one street at a time, because it is so narrow and so dangerous. As you turn left off Blockhouse Bay Road, it goes into New Windsor Road, where there is a retirement village—actually, it’s a Kāinga Ora one—just up on New Windsor Road. Carrying on down through Blockhouse Bay Road, it is quite densely populated. From Chalmers Street, as you turn right into Chalmers Street, it’s down the hill across the train line. So you can see why it’s an intersection that concerns the locals a great deal.

What I want to understand is why we’ve lost that safety improvement out of the area in which I live and to what extent, Minister, you took it upon yourself to familiarise yourself with the details of the projects that were being lost and the impacts on the local communities. Now, that is the first of the projects I want to ask about—that intersection of Blockhouse Bay Road and Chalmers Street—and I would appreciate some insight as to why people in my community have lost that safety improvement.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to make some general comments about the bill, and then some specific questions about this part. I guess one of the overall questions I have for the Minister is whether, in repealing the regional fuel tax, he asked for any advice on the relative compliance costs associated with collecting it as a revenue collection tool, compared to other tools. I know the Government has indicated that they are interested in providing other funding tools to councils, and, specifically for transport projects, tools like congestion pricing. But in the short term, there’s going to be a gap in revenue and then, in order for projects that were on the books in Auckland to continue being funded with a share from the council, it would have to come from some other source—probably rates or those projects simply won’t go ahead. But given that fuel tax is already being collected and the mechanism was in place to collect the regional fuel tax, did the Government give any consideration to the relative value of having something that is administratively simple and already in place to carry on with revenue so that infrastructure can carry on being funded until we have the congestion pricing or other mechanisms in place?

Then my second question relates to, in Part 1, clause 7, which talks about the amendments to the Schedule of the projects. What I’m particularly interested in is why the Minister decided to carry on allowing the funding that was sitting there, had been collected from the Auckland regional fuel tax—why is he allowing that to be used on the Eastern Busway, when the money from the regional fuel tax has come from car drivers, and now it’s being put to a public transport project. Why does he think it’s OK in the instance of the Eastern Busway, which is one of the few projects that was on the list of 14 projects to be funded? I’m really interested in the Minister’s answer on this. Does he think it’s fair for people who’ve been driving around Auckland, paying regional fuel tax, that that money be put towards a busway project, and, if so, why is that?

Just before I call the Hon Damien O’Connor, I’m just going to say that this is under urgency with no select committee. Part 1 is the substantial part of this bill, and we need to create an opportunity for some people who haven’t asked questions yet.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I came to the Chamber late—I had another meeting. I am thankful to be able speak to my amendment. There may be some in the Chamber who say, you know, “Do I care about Auckland?” I do care—particularly because I do travel up there occasionally—because my amendment reinstates Project 8 in the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax Scheme—Auckland) Order 2018, and it’s to do with road safety.

I have a passion for road safety. As someone—and there’ll be a few members here in the Chamber—who drives 50,000 or 60,000 kilometres a year at least, it’s a lot of time on the road and you fear for what might happen. There are a multitude of dangers out there. It’s one of the most dangerous things that people do: hop in a 1-tonne projectile and drive at 100 kilometres an hour, or something, towards someone else who’s coming the other way. It’s kind of taken for granted. We need to have proper laws and guidelines and protections to ensure that as few people as possible are killed or maimed. I said before: $5 million for every fatal accident.

So my question to the Minister for Transport is: when you are going to exclude capital expenditure of critical safety projects across Auckland, including safer speed limits, rural road safety improvements—something I’m very passionate about—what’s the cost of this long term? If we have one more fatal accident, that’s another $5 million cost to the economy. If he is indeed proposing that the amendments will drive better economic growth, every one of those fatal accidents cost $5 million. So has he done a study, has he got advice, as to what will be the effect of not investing in safer speed limits, rural road safety improvements?

Indeed, it goes over—there are many areas. The Cabinet Expenditure and Regulatory Review Committee addressed high-risk corridors, intersection and speed-related deficiencies on the network. Deficiencies are areas in infrastructure that have been identified as faulty, and this is going to be excluded from funding in Auckland—this is outrageous. We have a health and safety regime in this country that says if you identify a risk, you have a legal obligation to do something about that. Yet the Minister—and the question is for him: how can he walk away from this legal obligation to do everything in his power, and to work with Auckland Council, to reduce the risks that might result in deaths and injuries? Because if it was a workplace, and, indeed, as Minister of Transport, it is your workplace, Minister—how are you going to explain to the families of the people who are killed on rural roads because of insufficient infrastructure? How are you going to explain your legal position? Because if you were an employer or you were overseeing—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please don’t use the word “you”.

Sorry, sorry, Madam Chair. If the Minister was the employer or was the pick—I can’t remember the technical term for it in Health and Safety—

💬 Rachel Boyack: PCBU.

—PCBU (person conducting a business or undertaking)—then the Minister would be liable. So this is excluding investment in areas of road safety, and if it was health and safety, there would be an outrage. So Minister, maybe you can explain how you can justify that—the urban road safety programme as well will be excluded.

Then, you go over to the area that I’m not familiar with—because it itemises the particular areas, and my colleagues will point to those—but funding will be applied or will be excluded to signage related to speed limit changes. Now, I’ve had the occasional speeding fine. Sometimes, it’s because I don’t know what the speed limit is. But there are many, many angry people around the country now who are getting pinged. The Minister says there’s going to be more police out there on the road—that’s fine, that will contribute to better road safety. But if they haven’t had the signage to know what the speed limit is—and there are numerous examples across the country, particularly rural areas, and they’ll be the same around Auckland. “What was that last sign I had? What’s the speed limit now? Is it 60 or 70 or 80?” Indeed, there’s an ability now for the council to set variable speed limits.

If people are going to be prosecuted because there’s not been an investment and the Minister’s legislation has prevented investment in speed signs, that is outrageous. You will see—no, the Minister will see—the reaction, the Government will, from the people who live in rural Auckland and those who live in urban—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the members for their questions. There has been a range of questions raised in regards to various projects, and I note there’s a number of tabled amendments as well, and I note the honourable member who’s just sat down has raised a tabled amendment in regard to a particular one. There is around $340 million of unspent regional fuel tax revenue.

In discussions with the Mayor of Auckland, the priority projects are those main ones, which are the City Rail Link trains and stabling, which is critically important around the City Rail Link; the Eastern Busway and Reeves Road flyover, which is under construction; and local roading improvements. Those are the priorities that we both have agreed, and that is what this legislation is putting in place.

In relation to the honourable member Damien O’Connor, who’s just sat down, he raises a tabled amendment where he seeks to change clause 7, which, effectively, revokes—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: To reinstate clause 8.

Yeah, so he wants to reinstate clause 8, which is in relation to road safety, which he’s just articulated his reasons for that. I’m not sure if he’s had a conversation with his colleague Camilla Belich, because she has an identical tabled amendment where she doesn’t want to reinstate the road safety one but wants to reinstate active transport instead. So there seems to be some inconsistency in terms of some of these tabled amendments coming through from the Opposition members. I note there’s a range of other tabled amendments which seek to reinstate others. As we’ve outlined, we have already identified the three projects that we are going to require the remaining funding to go towards. We’ve been very clear about that. This is legislating that. In terms of all of those tabled amendments, we won’t be supporting them.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this bill as it goes through its committee stage. I did want to speak to some of the amendments that I have put forward, and thank you, Minister, for looking at them in advance of this contribution. I can just assure the Minister that on this side of the Chamber we have had conversations with each other about this bill, and many of the amendments that we seek to table—and we would appreciate the Minister’s support in relation to some of these amendments—look at the value of the different projects which will not be undertaken as a result of the passage of this bill, and are really looking for the committee and the Minister’s support in debating the merits of those projects and seeking, perhaps, a reversal in the decision to exclude them.

So I don’t think it’s inconsistent to say that my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor wants to retain safety in relation to road safety issues. While my amendments address other issues, either of those amendments would be an improvement on the bill that the Minister has put before the committee, and what we’re asking the Minister to do is really to consider them.

So I do have two amendments, and I’ll try and speak to both of them but I will try and seek another call if I don’t have time to speak to both. The first one is in relation to clause 7, which is in Part 1, which we’re currently looking at, and I’ve got two amendments to clause 7. The first one is given the letter “N” and is in relation to a particular section which the Minister has already referred to, but it goes through the different projects which were to be covered. The one that I want to specifically talk about first is N, and that looks at Project 2, which is the central city bus infrastructure—essentially, the Land Transport Management Act, from which the regional fuel tax funded a number of things within the central city in relation to bus infrastructure and bus improvements.

As someone who lives in Auckland, and I know the member does as well, we’ll both be well aware of the importance of buses. Travelling by bus is one of the major public transportation ways that are utilised within our city. Of course, we’ve looked previously and there’s been a lot of discussion in the earlier readings around rail, but at the moment, buses fulfil a very important role in relation to public transport.

So just for those who are wondering about the purpose of the amendment that I’ve put forward—and I’m interested to know whether the Minister would support this—the project which is not going to go ahead is capital expenditure for downtown bus infrastructure, including a bus interchange in Lower Albert Street for the North Shore and western buses, a bus interchange in the Wynyard Quarter, a bus interchange in the Beach Road area, bus priority improvements, also capital expenditure for bus infrastructure in the city centre, also including bus priority improvements for passenger facilities, including bus stops and bus shelters on Wellesley St and Grafton Road, and a new learning quarter for the Grafton Gully bus interchange.

So a significant amount of work in relation to making buses more accessible and more easily utilised by Aucklanders, and so my amendment to clause 7 would be to delete the words “1 to 3” and replace them with “1 and 3”, so, essentially, keeping and maintaining project two as listed in the schedule which is due to be repealed.

So I think those are really important aspects of public transportation that would have been funded by the regional fuel tax, which are now no longer going to be funded. I would like to know from the Minister, firstly, would he support the amendment that I have put in place? If not, what can Aucklanders expect in relation to his plans for public transportation and also for bus infrastructure, specifically in the areas which I mentioned, which will now no longer be served as a result of this bill?

Well, as I said earlier, the Government has outlined which of these projects we’re supporting. We’ve put that forward into the bill as it stands before the committee. There’s a range of tabled amendments which seek to—through various ways—reinsert others of those projects and, as I’ve outlined, the Government will not be supporting any of those tabled amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate being selected to take a call and make a contribution. I want to speak to my amendment, which is under clause 7, and it says to delete the words “1 to 3” and replace with “1 to 2”.

I want to highlight to the Minister that I am the member for Māngere, where the international airport is and where the domestic airport is, and I’m sure many of the colleagues across the Chamber—particularly on this side—come from Auckland and know the area well. Minister, I’m not sure if you know of the projects that are happening locally. So there has been a strong focus in terms of road safety, and the Hon Damien O’Connor spoke about why it is important to have intervention.

The repeal of the regional fuel tax heavily impacts on the continual delivery that the people in Māngere have seen. There has been a strong focus on pedestrian safety, on cycleways delivery, on serving the people of Māngere, which has actually served people of Greater Auckland and South Auckland because Māngere does not want to be an island where there’s congestion and continual roadblocks and continual cone city.

I wanted to highlight the project, Minister, in terms of the trends and what we have found with this project—local transport project called Te Ara Mua - Future Streets—and the success of that specific project has benefited because the funding has remained not just from central government but also from Auckland Council and the local community. That specific transport project has made the streets around Māngere centre, around our main precinct, safer by increasing the visibility and especially for our walking and our cycling community. So in Māngere—I’m just going to highlight very quickly in my time that a number of main streets in Māngere were like highways. They were not safe; not safe for families, not safe for our kaumātua who have to walk aided, and also too we have a disability community. This specific project has allowed the streets to be redesigned and we have local roads that have reduced traffic for up to 30 percent—and that has been measured, Minister.

So, Minister, I just want to ask some quick questions with regards to my amendment because it’s important that airport access is in the suite of options—and I know the Minister has highlighted, and thank you Minister: you have highlighted what is going to be kept in terms of local road improvements. I want to really emphasise and put on record that suburbs around the Auckland International Airport, if there is not that continual funding, are going to continue to be gridlocked and you can sit on a on a busy street in Māngere trying to get into the airport.

So, Minister, I wanted to highlight to you that we actually have the statistical data that has benefited from the funding of the regional fuel tax because Auckland Council has seen that the investment, the local transport investment, has not only benefited the local community but everybody using the airport in and out and even on the Pauanui interchange. I want to highlight also for the Minister that when you have a community who has not been served well in terms of transport infrastructure and to have that behaviour changed because you’ve got better public access on public transport, people are more confident in walking local streets; it’s a healthier option. The repeal of this regional fuel tax does not benefit lower socio-economic communities like Māngere and others in South Auckland. What we do know is that when communities like ours benefit, then the whole of Auckland benefits as well.

So, Minister, my question is: will you, in terms of the local road improvements, continue to engage; continue to consult the communities through your officials? Because we have benefited—we are a community that you can see the benefits are not just for old people, not just for community, but especially our young people who are in a modern age and I’d like to put that question to you. Thank you.

I’m going to take a call from Arena Williams because I know that you indicated before that there are some more questions. What I want from here on in—and we are in the urgency and we are making allowances for that. The Minister’s made it very clear that he’s chosen three projects and that others will not be part of. So I understand the local passion for those projects, but really looking for questions now around the technicality of what’s actually happening with the repeal of the bill. So I welcome Arena Williams to ask her other questions that she hasn’t asked yet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I was going to bring the committee’s attention to the Speaker’s ruling at 79/4 about this interchange, because it is something that aids in the debate. I have asked focused questions about the impact on consumers of this bill, which seeks to lower their costs. The purpose of the bill is to provide cost of living relief for Aucklanders. So it is very relevant to the committee in the committee of the whole House stage to understand how these savings will be passed on to consumers.

So to follow up my four questions of six which I have asked the Minister, I haven’t heard an answer to questions three and four. Question four, which has not yet been addressed, is: what information about price will be collected? The next question, had that been answered, that I would have asked, is: given that information’s being collected, which agency is responsible for it? Is it the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA); is it the wholesale fuel distributors themselves who would have otherwise paid that levy? That’s relevant because this committee needs to understand who, within the system, is responsible for ensuring that the information is collected, so that the Minister can then be assured that consumers are enjoying the benefit of his bill.

The Minister, I heard before, remarked that this is the same sort of regime as Labour’s when it introduced its fuel tax savings. The difference here, and what I’m trying to get to with these questions, is that that was only ever a temporary cost of living relief. This bill introduces a permanent change to the regime and, in fact, removes all of the Government’s taxing powers for cents per litre charge for fuel that can be used for local government transport projects that otherwise may not be fully funded. So the question here is how does this new regime, which is a long-term regime, ensure that consumers enjoy the benefits of this change?

My final question for the Minister is what the impact of the wholesale fuel distributors not paying that tax to NZTA would be on Auckland Council. Because we have heard in a number of contributions in these questions specifically about the issue of whether an increase of rates will be used to fund these specific projects—that’s not my question. I want to hear the Minister’s explanation about the impact on borrowing for Auckland Council’s books. Auckland Council is subject to a cap on the amount of money it can borrow. So because those wholesale fuel distributors will not be paying this tax to NZTA, it would be useful for this committee to appreciate how that will impact on the borrowing levels of Auckland Council; whether the Minister has considered any alternatives like lifting the cap of Auckland Council’s borrowing; or whether one of the ideas that the Minister discussed on the campaign trail of time user charges, otherwise known as motorway tolls, is something that he is considering to alleviate the pressure on Auckland Council’s books.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make clear—you made some observations about the nature of the debate. I think you mentioned, in passing, Speaker’s ruling 125/8, noting that we are in urgency and there’s no select committee, which perhaps expands the scope of the debate, because, of course, submitters haven’t had a chance to express their views about how it affects them and impacts them particularly, of course, in Auckland.

Also, Speaker’s ruling 124/5, which—although it mentions the nuts and bolts of a bill—also talks about whether the bill effectively implements the policy which it sets out to do. Obviously, members are identifying facts on the ground in terms of how that fits with the policy of the bill. So I just wouldn’t want members on this side of the Chamber to truncate their debate unnecessarily on the basis that you seem to say it should be a kind of technical—in other words “working”—debate, rather than how the bill actually implements the policies it’s intended to do.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, look, I understand the point that the member is making within the point of order, and I think if there are specific things around a project that relate to what’s happening in the bill, then that’s a fair question, rather than we don’t want to be up talking all night about projects that the Minister’s clearly said he’s not going to do, other than things that relate to the bill around safety—we’ve heard of—and various other things, which I think then the Minister would be required to at least listen to the question.

Speaking to the point of order. I do want to emphasise that this is a matter which Aucklanders are particularly concerned about, and the voice of people coming to select committee, which would be—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, OK. I get the point. I’m not ruling out people mentioning their projects; all I’m saying is can we home in when we’re speaking about points that relate back to the bill. I’m not going to sit anyone down for mentioning a project; I just want to know how it relates to their question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know there are members opposite seeking a call. I would hope that they would share with the committee their views. I look forward to hearing from Andy Foster, the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. That would be if this was in front of a select committee considering this, along with Grant McCallum and Tom Rutherford. But it seems that only other members of that select committee are contributing tonight.

I do want to thank colleagues on this side who have shared their local passion for some of the projects, because I do think—and I hope that the Minister accepts this and perhaps that’s a question to the Minister: does the Minister accept that local members of Parliament, who obviously have a very clear and distinct connection to many of these projects, are firstly entitled to raise the concerns, and that those concerns are not simply set aside, because the Minister’s response is that he’s decided on the three. In actual fact, he’s already pointed out a couple of Amendment Papers in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor and also my colleague Camilla Belich. I think there might be a suggestion, maybe from the Minister, that instead of isolating each of those, perhaps we could just put them all back in. I think he would find favour on this side of the Chamber if that was what he was referring to. Perhaps he could clarify that.

I have a number of Amendment Papers in my name that I would like the opportunity to address. They are distinctly different. Before I move to that, though, there are still a number of outstanding clauses within Part 1 that have yet to be addressed, and I do have questions about them, so I will turn those to the Minister.

The first in this call is in relation to clause 22, and that is still within the proposed new Part 5 inserted into Schedule 1AA—and this relates to the “Disbursement of proceeds”. When one looks at what is contained in subclause (1), it refers to “Top-up funding”, and there’s a specific word that’s used there, which is in relation to “the payment of scheme administration or winding-up costs,”. It says that “it may require the Auckland Council to pay it an amount or amounts from the Auckland RFT reserve fund to fund those payments.”

Now, my question for the Minister is: is that a discretion that rests with the agency, in which case there is perhaps no consultation with Auckland Council as to what its requirements or its role might be in terms of that final sentence there within the clause, or is the use of the word “may” more of a two-way transactional conversation? This relates, actually, to an earlier point that my colleague Shanan Halbert made about the level of consultation that had taken place between the Mayor of Auckland and the Minister. So my question is around where that discretion lies. Does it sit purely with the agency, or is there an expectation that it’s a one-way relationship in this regard. Now, I note that this is in relation to transitional provisions, but, none the less, it is important that that is understood.

My other question relates to clause 23, and this is in relation to the “reserve fund”. So clause 23(1) talks about the fact that “The Auckland Council must continue to operate … [this] fund under … [a parent section] until it is spent.” Now, my question to the Minister is: is there any incentive or disincentive for the spending of those moneys? Because it could be that the money could just sit there for—well, the question is: what period of time? It’s unspecified. Is it tied in with the date that other provisions within this bill would come into place? But, then again, these are provisions that are transitional, and so I’d appreciate the clarity around that.

The other is also in relation to subclause (2)(b) under that clause, and this ties in with projects—specifically, four, six, and 12. If those projects were to be delayed, what would be the impact in relation to how the reserve fund may be accessed or not? So, in essence, is the spending of the moneys for projects four, six, and 12 time bound; if so, could the Minister please point to the time-bound provision within clause 23, and, if not, why not?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a wonderful thing to be able to take a call for the first time on the repeal of the regional fuel tax bill. As you know, I come from Ōtepoti—Dunedin—and the Dunedin City Council has a zero-carbon target by 2030, and in that they aim to change modality in transport. I’ve noticed here that removing the legislative framework for imposing regional taxes will provide certainty to households and businesses that no regional fuel taxes will be implemented by any other region. Now, this is a real concern for our community—for local authorities nationally—because the fuel tax has been an inspiration for other urban areas to make change to deliver for their communities.

If I think about the shifts that the Dunedin City Council said, they want three main themes to cover how Dunedin’s transport emissions can be reduced in three main ways: by supporting people to live well locally, by enabling businesses and people to shift to low-carbon transport modes, and by improving the vehicle fleet. There are eight key shifts that they talk about: nurture low-emission urban form; target closer destinations, encourage closer destinations, and inspire longer stays; unlock remote solutions; develop convenient and attractive cycling and walking networks and public transport services; boost transport demand management and support use of active and public modes; shift freight to low-emission modes; electrify light vehicles—ah, yeah, that’s right, we’ve got rid of the low-emissions fee—and decarbonise heavy vehicles, marine, and aviation. So if we think about what a regional fuel tax could do for urban areas that are taking their own work—we know this Government doesn’t care, we know this Government wants to destroy the environment, but there are cities who are working to decarbonise. There are cities and urban areas that are trying to do their best, and there are rural hinterlands that also want to do their best and have the option to do so, or had the option to do so, taking the example of the Tāmaki-makau-rau fuel tax.

Now, this is a fuel tax that has enabled public transport, it’s enabled walkable streets, it’s given the potential for light rail—and I can’t understand why anyone would want to stomp on local initiatives, on city initiatives, to do well by their communities. Why would central government seek to destroy localism? Why would central government seek to destroy localism when it can provide for their communities, when it can provide climate safe communities? This is something that should not be thrown out. This is something that is actually really important. And what this bill does is disincentivise and give the middle finger to every other local jurisdiction around the country, to say: “We don’t care. We’re too entitled to let you choose.” That’s essentially what it says.

I am embarrassed to be in a Parliament that allows something to happen like this. This is just a shocking, shocking indictment of the climate denialism that we face across the aisle. It’s a shocking indictment of the desire for Rapture—you want to head there in an SUV, but this isn’t going to happen. We need to be looking for solutions, and unfortunately the Minister doesn’t appear to see what’s in front of his eyes, which is a community—a community of local government who want this type of solution and have been arguing for it for ever and a day, only being overridden by a Government that does not care.

I thank the member for his question, which asked, effectively, why regional fuel taxes can’t also be applied elsewhere. Our Government doesn’t support regional fuel taxes. We’re repealing the legislation, as I’ve already told the committee, and so we are repealing it through this legislation.

In relation to other questions from members in the Labour Party regarding projects in their areas, as we’ve outlined, this bill prioritises the three particular projects listed and requires the remaining funds to go towards those, and we’re not supporting any of the other amendments that have been put forward. There were a number of questions from Tangi Utikere in terms of the disbursement. This is in relation to the funds that may be required for the council to pay this. The agency may request extra costs be recovered. Effectively, that is to do with the funds being used in relation to the rebates and ensuring that there are funds available for those rebates. That’s my understanding of the purpose of that particular provision, and also to cover the cost of the scheme.

In regards to clause 23, any incentive or disincentive to spend it, the legislation doesn’t make the spend time-bound, because obviously some of those projects are going to take two to three years, so there’s going to be no time-bounds on them. Ultimately, the council is motivated to complete them, and at the completion of it, once the funding is spent, then, of course, it’s spent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be my second line of questioning. I haven’t received responses to my key questions at the start. The Minister of Transport acknowledged that he had met with Mayor Wayne Brown, but my question was actually framed around what the current state of the relationship is and the impact of this piece of legislation. What were the views of the mayor and councillors on this piece of legislation to inform those decisions?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I don’t think that the Minister’s responsible for the views of the mayor. The questions are to the Minister’s actions, not somebody else’s.

Sure. The reason I’m asking that question, Madam Chair, is because I’m interested in what advice the Minister took on board given the absence of a submission period from Aucklanders, from the mayor, and from councillors. Usually, in select committee, we would have the opportunity to hear directly from them; we don’t have that in this instance, hence the question to the Minister. I’d really appreciate just a bit of an update of that state of that relationship and how he intends to move forward in working on transport infrastructure with Auckland Council.

The second question I want to move to is around the relationship with Auckland Transport and how they might have been involved in his decision making. What was their advice that they gave the Minister, and which particular parts may he have considered in that? Did he meet with Dean Kimpton, the CEO, and what was Dean’s advice to the Minister, and is there follow-up to address the cancellation of projects and the hole that it leaves in in transport infrastructure in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland?

Lastly, in this line of questioning, I wanted to drill down back into—somebody touched on the road safety point, but I wanted to come back to, particularly, safety for our tamariki around schools and pedestrian crossings. I respect the Minister, and I have enjoyed working with him in the transport space over the past few years, but I have openly called him cynical today in our speeches, on the basis that he has doubled down on pedestrian crossings in this particular discussion. I’m seeking an explanation from the Minister, because children’s safety, road safety, is a very important part of the decision that this legislation is making, and in my community we have very good examples where pedestrian crossings have been very effective: outside Birkdale Primary, Beach Haven Primary, Northcote Intermediate. While the construction of those were quite disruptive, actually, it prevents any of our tamariki being hit by cars or being seriously injured as a result.

The question I had for the Minister is: in his second reading speech and first reading speech he continued to mention the amount of $500,000 as a cost for pedestrian crossings. Part of his rationale in this legislation change is that he wants to get more bang for buck, and that’s fine. I just wonder which example he might be referring to in that cost of $500,000, what other examples of more cost-effective pedestrian crossings he may have looked at, and what were those costings and which projects may he have completed site visits to. I appreciate that these might be part of the cancellation of prospective projects—but it’s an important part, just to understand where the Minister’s thinking is in his decision when prioritising key parts. I accept, partially, that, you know, he’s called a halt to the regional fuel tax; that there’s only a certain amount of money left, but when we come to how do we actually decide on how we spend that, I’m not clear on how the Minister has gone through that decision-making process.

My questions regarding pedestrian crossings are actually because, from what I’ve heard from the Minister, I worry that he has unfairly looked at those and used a poor example from the New Zealand Herald that has been withdrawn. So I do want to understand what his view actually is on that and what examples he might have looked at out in either my community or out in other communities, because from my understanding, not all pedestrian crossings are at $500,000. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The number of questions there from Shanan Halbert asking me for my views, of the mayor’s views, and in relation to the views of Auckland Transport, etc., etc. I mean, ultimately, as I’ve outlined on a number of occasions, we took this policy to the election; Aucklanders voted for it—in fact, I think Auckland voted 57 percent for the coalition Government—and now we are delivering on that promise with this legislation. The bill, I think, outlines all of those various elements of how we are repealing it, what projects are remaining, and so I don’t think those questions are particularly in relation to the bill.

Arena Williams asked earlier around the issue around the fuel companies passing on the cost. The answer to those questions is that, ultimately, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is responsible for the regular monitoring of importer margins on fuel. They will be doing what they did when the last Government reduced fuel excise, I think two years ago, and we’ll be making sure they’re monitoring that in exactly the same way to ensure that the reduction in the fuel excise is passed on to motorists.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, e te Māngai o te Whare. I have a few questions for the Minister on the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, Part 1, particularly on clause 4 and clause 5. My first question is: how will the Minister ensure that the abolition of the regional fuel tax does not adversely affect the funding of current and future transport projects in Auckland, especially those that are critical to reducing and improving the public transportation system?

My second question is: can the Minister explain how the alternative funding mechanisms he proposes will replace the revenue previously generated under the regional fuel tax and how will these be implemented to ensure the continuity of long-term transport infrastructure in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland?

My third question: can the Minister detail the transitional provisions that will be put in place to manage the wind-up process of the current scheme to ensure a minimal disruption to all ongoing and planned projects in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland?

My fourth question, and this is in terms of clause 5, particularly the savings provisions of clause 5: how will the Minister ensure that the savings provisions protect the already committed funds and projects that were to be financed by the regional fuel tax and what measures will he put in place to ensure that these projects are completed as planned?

And my final question—this time—number five: what legislative and regulatory changes will be required to effectively wind up the regional fuel tax scheme and what is the time line for these changes? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank you for some of the questions that were asked in relation to projects—I’ve answered in prior questions and answers. In relation to specific projects, we’ve been very clear about the ones that we will be requiring the remaining funding to be going towards, and this legislation and schedules deal with how exactly that will happen.

In terms of the winding up of the scheme, this legislation effectively requires, from the time of Royal assent—we’ll get to that debate later—that the funds are required to be spent on these particular projects and then on 30 June that is when the tax ends.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have some further questions for the Minister of Transport. Given that he was not interested in responding about either the increased personal costs of injury and death nor the cost to the Government of increased health, I will focus on the very immediate cost of living question. The median distance of travel to school in metro urban authorities is just over 2 kilometres. Is it cheaper for a family, let’s say with two children, to encourage their children to walk to school or to have to buy a second car to drive them there? Is it cheaper to have cycle lanes and footpaths or to increase the health budget? And is it cheaper to catch a bus or to drive and pay for parking in Tāmaki-makau-rau?

Look, I think there’s a range of questions in relation to a range of transport policies. I mean, ultimately what we’re doing here is removing the Auckland regional fuel tax, which removes 10c a litre plus GST off the cost of fuel in Auckland. That is what this Government does. That’s what the legislation does.

I call—I’m just checking to see who has taken the call—the Hon Deborah Russell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very grateful to have only my second call on this bill. I want to go to clause 7 to discuss some of the things that would probably have been discussed in a select committee process, had we been able to have one. I know we’re doing this under urgency, but the fact that it’s under urgency doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine this as thoroughly as we can in the committee stage. I don’t think it was the choice of this side of the Chamber to go into urgency, so—consequences.

I just want to take one issue with the Minister. One of the things that the Minister says is “We won the election.” and so on, and “Therefore, we don’t need to discuss.” Indeed, that is quite clear, but that doesn’t mean that the Government is still not responsible for discussing these matters. Just saying that repeatedly, when we are raising concerns from our local communities, kind of does amount to going “Nyah nyah na-nyah nyah!”, so it would be helpful if we got some responses.

Having said all that, I do want to go to a very specific project which is missing from my area, and it matters. So it relates to project 13; it’s one of the items in clause 7, where we’ve got Schedule 2 being amended, and Project 13 is now taken out. That’s a real shame, because it was about improving the capability of the network, and the particular set of projects I was interested in is the one around dynamic lanes, which is really interesting—dynamic traffic lanes.

Now, I have a good friend who lives out in Whangaparāoa, out on Vipond Road out there. So I go and visit him every now and again, and there’s a really fantastic dynamic lane there, and it works really well to ensure that we’ve got effective traffic flows, that the road is being used to capacity, so two lanes out in the morning, then it gets swapped over and you get two lanes back in in the evening with the dynamic lane.

Project 13 has dynamic lanes included, and there were to be dynamic lanes along Great North Road and around Patiki Road and around Blockhouse Bay Road. Certainly, Blockhouse Bay Road could do with that extra lane out in the morning, and the extra lane in in the evening would have made quite a difference.

But the road I want to really focus on is Patiki Road, and the reason I want to focus on Patiki Road is it goes off State Highway 20, I think it is, and leads up into Rosebank Road, up through the Avondale Peninsula. That is an intense light—I was going to say “intense light industrial area”; it’s a light industrial area—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Does the member have a question for the Minister?

Yes, I do—I do. I’m going to get to it, I promise. There are a lot of businesses there and the traffic gets incredibly congested there. It is hard for businesses to operate there because the traffic is inadequate. Yet this project, which would have been so beneficial to them, has been taken off the drawing board.

I want to know if the Minister consulted the Rosebank Business Association. I mean, they’ve been lobbying for years for better traffic on that road. They’ve lobbied, and they really do need some improvements there. So has the Minister—in lieu of having a select committee stage where people like the Rosebank Business Association could have come and talked about this project—consulted with the Rosebank Business Association?

That dynamic traffic flow would have made a huge difference, not just to the local residents but to businesses in that area, and it’s a real shame that they haven’t had that chance to come and make that case themselves, so I’m making it for them. What consultation did the Minister undertake with the businesses operating along Rosebank Road? Those businesses are typically represented by the Rosebank Business Association.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, can I just reiterate what the former Chair said to members: not to now refer to specific projects but to the ones that remain as a consequence of this bill. She did say you could mention specific projects, but the questioning to the Minister about those has been fairly well done—I’ve got a good record of them. So we’re looking for new material and we are looking for specific questions to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for the question. Ultimately, as I’ve outlined on a number of occasions, the Government has been very clear around which of these projects will require the remaining funding to support. There were a number of members raising questions about particular projects. Obviously, we’ve released the Government policy statement on transport this week and those issues will be dealt with through the council being able to continue to put forward projects. Ultimately, this bill is about the Auckland regional fuel tax. We’re removing the Auckland regional fuel tax and that’s what this bill does.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I’ve got two specific lines of questions that could have definitely been addressed at the select committee stage.

So the first one is: whether a child impact assessment has been done on this bill. The reason why I’m raising this is because if you look at the general policy statement, it’s very clear that part of what this bill intends to do is to provide some relief to New Zealanders who are facing difficulty due to the rising cost of living. So it’s really clear that there is a cost of living intent in this bill. At the select committee stage, we normally could evaluate the impact that such a bill with cost of living implications would have on things like child poverty reduction. I think this is quite pertinent to ask because we’ve been told by different Ministers on bills that will increase child poverty that those bills that increase child poverty are not to be taken in isolation but as part of a range of interventions that the Government is doing. This is one of those, according to different Ministers.

So what I’m interested to know is whether a child impact assessment has been done as part of the process of this bill, to actually evaluate the cost of living impacts on children, particularly on child poverty reduction, because, to me, I guess, this is one of the bills the Government intends to have cost of living impacts. So I’m keen to know what analysis and to what extent those impacts on cost of living relief have been done as part of preparing for this bill, and if there’s no information, actually, around, for example, how many children does the Minister expect to be lifted out of poverty as part of the relief that this bill is supposed to provide, I’m curious to know then whether the Minister can back up his arguments around the significant cost of living impacts that this will have.

The other thing that I was interested to unpack was around a distributional assessment, and that’s the other part that I think hasn’t really been unpacked as part of the legislative process. Again, this is something that we could have unpacked with officials and with the Minister, and other submitters could have brought their own analysis on this. By distributional assessment, I mean, for example, which population groups are the ones that the Minister expects to have most to gain as part of the repeal of the regional fuel tax.

So on different bills that we normally evaluate in select committee, we do get the opportunity to assess where we do think that impact will go. So, for example, is he expecting that people from specific neighbourhoods will be more disproportionately benefiting compared to others? Is this families, for example, receiving income support, or different ethnic groups expected to benefit? Is this people who are working full time or part-time or who live near, for example, public transport areas? This is important, right? Because if the whole intent of the repeal is to have a cost of living impact, it’s worthwhile examining who’s going to feel that impact that he claims this bill will have the most on? I think, again, if the Minister’s unable to substantiate his so-called cost of living impacts of this bill by backing it up with evidence and robust analysis, I just question, then, whether the cost of living argument for this bill is just based on vibes as opposed to actually robust evidence around who will benefit the most.

To recap, I’m interested in whether a child impact assessment has been done, whether a distributional assessment was done, and whether the same analysis on how this will impact child poverty reduction targets—particularly in the context of other bills that will increase child poverty in this country.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Camilla Belich—oh, sorry, she’s not here.

💬 Camilla Belich: I am here.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, you are here. Good on you.

I’ll take the call, even if you didn’t mean to give it to me, Madam Chair—thank you very much. I did want to speak to an Amendment Paper that I have and specifically cover some grounds which I don’t think have been covered to date in the questioning of the Minister.

There’s been a lot of talk about various projects that the Minister has decided not to exempt from the repeal of a number of these projects, and I would like, actually, a bit more of a thorough answer from the Minister. I just had a look at the Standing Orders, and the Minister is required to answer all of our questions. I’m not sure that simply saying, “I don’t want to” or “It’s not the one I picked” is a substantial enough or considered enough justification for the amount of projects which are being defunded, essentially, in Auckland. So the specific ones I wanted to mention—

Ricardo Menéndez March: There is an expectation that he does, yes.

Thank you. So the clause I wanted to mention is clause 7. Now, the reason clause 7 keeps coming up, Madam Chair, as you’ll be aware, is clause 7, basically, gets rid of an entire Schedule within the primary Act, which lists a number of projects which the Minister, on the whole, has decided to defund for Aucklanders. The specific ones that I wanted to mention, I wouldn’t describe them as local projects; I  would describe them as essential infrastructure decisions which have been consulted on for a number of years and are integral to Auckland as a city.

The one that I think most clearly illustrates that particular point is the project number 9, which I have suggested should be exempted, and one of the aspects of project number 9 was capital expenditure to support the City Centre Masterplan Access for Everyone programme. Now, for those of you who aren’t aware about the City Centre Masterplan Access for Everyone programme, I’m sure Auckland MPs, including the Minister, will be well aware of it, because it’s existed since 2012 and was, indeed, in 2019 consulted on and endorsed in 2020 by the Auckland planning committee. And this is being repealed specifically in the part of the section which we are discussing at the moment.

I mean, that is quite different from a number of the other issues which have been discussed, and I wanted to know from the Minister: has he turned his mind to this particular plan? And how does he envisage that that particular plan and its very important objectives—which look at the best utilisation of the central city, which is something which is enjoyed by not only everyone who lives in Auckland but, indeed, visitors to Auckland—how is that going to be supported by his Government, considering this is proposed to be repealed by this bill?

The second area that I wanted to highlight in this particular project—which is called a project, but, actually, it’s a list of significant initiatives which won’t be moving forward—is the retrofit of existing painted cycle lanes and appropriate safety barriers. We can, I think, all agree that we need to have safer cycling in New Zealand, and this particular project was funded—2018 to 2028 was the proposal for that. That’s not going forward, and I think it’s important that the Minister explain to the committee why was a decision that he made or that his Cabinet made to not fund that anymore and to not have those safety features in Auckland cycling to be funded, and the justification for that. Because I think it is important and I think the Minister has a duty to this committee to explain why things that have been consulted on by Aucklanders, implemented by Auckland Council—proposals that sought to enrich the city centre and provide greater access to Aucklanders to the city centre—are now no longer going ahead.

It’s something that has existed since 2012, and was revisited in 2019, and then in 2020. It is a significant period of time and, for me, it seems very distressing to think that all of the work that went into that could be repealed without a select committee process. So I do, on that point—if he doesn’t come back to me on cycling, I think that he does have a duty to talk about the City Centre Masterplan Access for Everyone and the reasoning that he wanted to not fund that capital expenditure, and what will exist in its place.

There’s a couple of questions there in relation to one from Ricardo Menéndez March from the Green Party in relation to the cost of living. This will have a cost of living impact by reducing the cost of petrol for Aucklanders, and that is something which is, of course, good news to people in Auckland and I know has significant support from the people of Auckland.

In relation to the question from Camilla Belich, I have answered a range of very similar questions in relation to particular Amendment Papers which we’ve said we’re not supporting. Because ultimately we were elected to remove this tax, we’re removing it on 30 June this year. There will only be a certain amount of remaining funding and we have prioritised that remaining funding to the projects listed in the bill, and that is what we’re doing through this legislation.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Before I take another call, I want to remind people, again, that we are not discussing or debating projects that are no longer in the bill. OK?

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are two separate legs to this contribution. Both are new. The first is about what options the Minister considered for those policies which he discussed on the campaign trail around alternatives to a regional fuel tax, given that—and I’m referring the committee here to Part 1 of the bill, clause 4, on page two of our copy, which is entitled “Subpart 3 of Part 2 repealed”, and it says, “Repeal subpart 3 of Part 2.”

So what this part does is it removes the legislative framework that allows new regional fuel taxes to be created, also from 1 July 2024, and the regulations relating to the proposals of new schemes and the conditions that must follow will also be revoked. My question to the Minister about this is: is this not the part of the law which he would seek to amend, were he to introduce time-user charging, or would this piece of legislation not provide him with an easy way to introduce things like motorway tolls, which were discussed in the campaign about alternatives to a regional fuel tax for Auckland? Would this provision that is being repealed by this bill, in fact, be useful to those things that he has indicated to Aucklanders he is considering, and can the Minister give us an assurance that we’re not going to be back in this House quite soon to bring in what is, essentially, a very similar regime to the one that we are repealing?

You know, we could work in this committee stage very quickly on an amendment that would put that back so that it is quite possible for this House to amend that section, if those alternatives are something which the Minister wants to explore, because if we keep that in, then there is some efficiency about providing a legislative route for an amendment which is well understood and which everybody knows how it operates. That wouldn’t run in the face of what the Minister is trying to do. We accept that at this stage, the committee stage, the Minister is absolutely able to propose an idea to the committee, and this would not cut against his idea; it would simply leave in the provisions which allow for arrangements like these to be made.

The Minister might provide the committee here with some clarity about how time-user charges are different. They are different—they are not revenue-raising implements, usually—and in other jurisdictions they are ways of managing traffic flows, because people change their behaviour when they are in place. But this would be something which would allow the levies to be raised by Government, which would actually allow time-user charging to be in place. That’s the first question there.

The second question I have for the Minister is not about a proposal that has been taken off the table entirely—and, look, I think the Minister will be keen to answer this one, because it’s a project that he is interested in, as am I. Both of us are from Manurewa, and it concerns Manurewa: it is about Mill Road. But my question specifically is about this: the Minister is indicating that he is moving Mill Road out of this small pot of money here, which is created by the Auckland regional fuel tax, and into the big pot of money. So it’s very unlike the other projects that my colleagues have been discussing. It’s not going away; there is a provision for it. The Minister has indicated that it will go into the big pot to be considered alongside other significant projects that happen around the country.

So my question to the Minister is: I’m keen on Mill Road as a local roading upgrade—I want people to have access to that as a local project—but what I’m concerned about is that that project could balloon into, essentially, a road of national significance that we spend $3.5 billion on, and now, if it’s in that big pot and out of the instruments here in the small pot, which are being repealed by this bill, what assurance can the Minister give to the committee that there will be adequate controls over that sort of ballooning of costs in a project which should be an upgrade of a local road? It is a local road in South Auckland which South Aucklanders use. That’s a specific question about Mill Road, and I have others, if you’d like to discuss that great project.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, the first question from Arena Williams is not relevant to this bill. This bill is repealing the regional fuel tax. If the Government was to make other policy changes in regards to other types of funding and financing for infrastructure, that is something which would be done separately. So it’s not relevant to the bill which is in front of us.

In relation to the question around in-ground projects, again, that question has been asked multiple times. I would note, though, that the regional fuel tax was not proposing to spend any money on Mill Road because the last Government cancelled it.

I move that debate on this question now end.

I’m sorry, there was a problem with the motion that was put. We’ll have one more go.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is only my second call today, and I wanted to delve a little bit into a number of areas that I’ve been working on over the years with people who live, particularly, in the Maungakiekie electorate. Those are particularly around, for example, bus improvements in areas like around Sylvia Park, which is the busiest shopping mall in the country and an area that deserves improvement so that people can get around. I also have a few questions—specifically around road safety, walking and cycling routes—to the Minister as well. I have worked over the last few years with groups of mums and dads who’ve been walking their children to local schools. What they would really like is for their children to be able to cycle to schools together and to be able to do it safely.

Now, I get that we’re not delving into specific projects that are being removed by the dismantling of this structure through this particular repeal bill—I get that—but what I really want to ask the Minister about is the gaps, because, ultimately, what we’re talking about is 11 projects that will not go ahead, which, in its entirety, means that infrastructure that would have allowed children to be able, potentially, to cycle to schools or people to be able to get to their busiest local mall is not there. So there is a gap, and I do want to know what advice the Minister’s received about plugging some of those gaps.

I do want to know what the thinking was behind addressing those significant and intractable issues that Aucklanders are facing. For example, I mean, since 2017, we’ve seen reports saying that Auckland is in the midst of a road-safety crisis. Death and serious injuries have increased by 70 percent between 2014 and 2017. That’s three times more than what the rest of the country has experienced. In Ellerslie, in a suburb in Maungakiekie, alone, there’s been a huge amount of work and there’s been advocacy that’s gone into some of the road-safety improvements that are required to be able to save lives, essentially. So I’d like to know: what thinking and what advice has the Minister received in terms of plugging some of those gaps?

I also want to know from a disability perspective, because some of the capital projects that will be lost as a result of this repeal bill were meant to address accessibility deficiencies, and I see that specifically listed in the Order in Council. So I’d like to know from a disability perspective as well: where is the gaps analysis? Has there been any consultation with our disability communities—with our disabled people—for whom using roads is already unsafe, to ensure that there will be perhaps other road safety improvements that will help them?

Finally, my former colleague Marja Lubeck was a huge supporter of the Penlink project, and I just have a quick clarification question for the Minister, because I know that steady progress has been made since 2020. The sod was turned over a year ago. What’s stopping it? It’s under one of the projects listed in terms of it being stopped, and I’d really like to know whether it does stay or what exactly happens to that project as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 6A be agreed to.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 7 be agreed to.

The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment to clause 7 be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 7 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 7 replacing the words “7 to 11” with “8 to 11” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 7 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7 be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 7 replacing the words “1 to 3” with “1, 3” be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 7 replacing the words “7 to 11” with “7, 8, 10, 11” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 be agreed to.