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

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 9 to 14, “Consequential amendments” and Schedules 2 and 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I raise a point of order in relation to Speakers’ ruling 132/1 and Standing Order 315(4). I seek your guidance on your rulings in the previous debate about those amendments that members on this side were raising questions about, which you said had been rejected by the Minister. This draws on logic in Speakers’ ruling 132/1 that “A Chairperson has to consider the admissibility of amendments that are substantially the same as an amendment that has already been [not agreed to]”. That logic was brought in after members of the Labour Party introduced a huge number of amendments about date changes, and then it allowed those date changes to be treated as, essentially, one thing to be voted on, so as not to waste the House’s time. The problem with applying that sort of logic to your points in that debate is that we do not want the committee to get into a situation where a Minister might reject all of the amendments that have been put by Opposition members, and then the Chairperson to apply that logic in Speakers’ ruling 132 in order to, essentially, stifle debate about a number of amendments.

The problem here is that the amendments that were presented by Labour members were all different. Some applied to projects which would continue; some applied to projects which would not continue; some applied to projects which would be continued by the Auckland Council but not by the Government. So those are amendments which had a substantially different effect, and they should not be treated as if they were simply changes to dates. I guess, Madam Speaker, I’m asking you to reflect on whether, going forward in these committee stages, Opposition members can expect to put a number of amendments which are consequentially different but amend the same sections, because if the Minister is able to rule out any support for amendments to the same section that have different results, then that will significantly stifle the Opposition’s ability to question the Minister on the changes that he proposes.

I’ll also draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to Standing Order 315(4), which is about “amendments are proposed that, in the opinion of the chairperson, are the same in substance”. That Standing Order should be applied at the time of voting on those amendments. But there is no indication there that there was ever an intention for that Standing Order to be applied to the debate and to the contributions. So to apply that logic in order to move on to a closure motion and to tell Opposition members not once but three times is the issue here.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can the member please point out what the question is.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes. The question for you, Madam Chair, is: did you rely on Speakers’ ruling 132/1 or Standing Order 315(4) to, essentially, give direction to Labour members twice that their contributions should not mention their amendments, which were, in your view, substantially the same? You are well within your right to rule that those amendments were substantially the same, but did you use those Speakers’ rulings and that Standing Order to do that?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I take note of the member’s contribution, and, as you will be aware, it’s the Chair’s discretion about the length of the debate, to take the closure motion, and the content of the debate.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a different point of order?

ARENA WILLIAMS: My question is: is that a ruling, Madam Chair, that Labour members should take into account for further committee stages?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The discretion of the Chair is definitely something that you should keep in mind.

Point of order. Madam Chair, there was a question that, I think, I submit to you is reasonable in trying to get some clarity in terms of the ruling that you’ve made. It’s still not quite clear to members on this side of the House, my colleague Ms Williams identified—were you relying on Speakers’ ruling 132/1 or were you relying on Standing Order 315(4)? I don’t think it’s unreasonable for any member of this House to seek clarity as to which of those you relied on. I take the point that you’ve made that it is up to the Chair; however, effectively, giving an instruction to any member of this House that they are not to raise any issues that because the Minister had already indicated that they were—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK. I understand the point of order. I understand the various procedures that you’re outlining. But at the end of the day, I was attempting to give the Speaker’s guidance about the debate. We were getting very repetitive. The person in the Chair prior to me coming in had already tried to give that guidance; I did it twice, as you’ve pointed out. That was the purpose of making those recommendations to the members: the debate had become repetitive. Every one of those amendments was tabled and debated, and it was the repetition that we were very aware of that was happening.

Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a different point of order?

TANGI UTIKERE: This is a different point of order. Madam Chair, you’ve just indicated that every single item that was an Amendment Paper was tabled was debated. That, I submit to you, is incorrect. There was an Amendment Paper in my name that I sought a call for on many occasions, you chose not to give it to me, and it was not mentioned. It related to the ferry network and charging infrastructure.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK. I apologise if I missed that in the debate, but every one of the amendments was tabled and voted on.

TANGI UTIKERE: I understand that, but the issue here is that you, effectively, are giving an instruction to members opposite as to what they can and what they can’t do, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yeah, you did take four calls, Mr Utikere, in this debate. So you’ve had ample—

Arena Williams: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, I’m not taking any more. We are moving on to Part 2.

Can I speak to that point of order, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you seeking a call?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, I was going to speak to the previous point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, I just said that that debate is over.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you calling a new point of order?

ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes. Madam Chair, is your guidance for the Labour members that it is repetitive to seek a call on a new Amendment Paper, under Speakers’ ruling 132/1?

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re getting to the point now where we are getting a number of what appear to be relatively frivolous points of orders being raised, and the Speaker alluded to this earlier on in question time.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Tell that to Winston in question time.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Points of order are still actually heard in silence, and so I think it’s reasonable to have the opportunity to talk to this, because what we’ve seen in the past couple of Parliaments has been a clear focus from the Speaker that clarification actually is something that should be taken offline, outside the debating chamber. If members are unsure on how the process in the House works, they can seek a time with the Speaker to clarify that. But the aspect that the members are concerned about, obviously, is that there are a number of amendments, there is a clear Speakers’ ruling that make it obvious that it’s not—just because there’s a tabled amendment doesn’t mean there should always be an opportunity to speak to every amendment, and indeed the repetition is a key part of that.

Tangi Utikere: If you get the call.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: So, again, I’d appreciate some courtesy here, Mr Utikere, as we’re going through a point of order.

The issue is, of course, that it is the Chair’s call to make, and the continuing questioning of that is not helpful to the order of the committee.

Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, this debate about all of that is over. I’ve said we are moving on now to Part 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that explanation, because I do have an Amendment Paper in my name and it’s great to be able to speak to it tonight. It seeks an amendment to Schedule 3 and to delete the reference to the Search and Surveillance Act. I take the Minister’s point around it needing to sit there, but I guess what I’m interested in hearing from the Minister is what the active provisions are. I state that because, prior to coming to this House, I was an authorised officer under the provisions of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, so I have some experience in its operation in relation to the issue of search warrants but also of production orders, where that’s considered appropriate.

My question to the Minister is where within—well, it’s proposed that it remains there in terms of within Schedule 3. But my question is around how it relates, specifically in an active form, to the bill, to the legislation. So I’d be interested in an answer from the Minister around that.

The other is in terms of those consequential amendments: is the Minister satisfied that all of them—and there are a number there that relate to local government legislations, and then there is of course the catch-all in clause 14, which is around all the other Acts that will be amended. But is the Minister satisfied that those amendments capture all of the possibilities, and, in particular, what provision is there if particular projects—and at this stage it looks as though they will only be three of the projects—are either deferred or if they don’t proceed? Given the changing dynamics of things, what does that then mean? So I’d be interested—particularly around the active nature of the Search and Surveillance Act provisions. [Member resumes seat] Oh, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tangi Utikere.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps we’ll give some time for the Minister to reflect on that and perhaps take a call. The reason as to why the Amendment Paper is in my name is because—at this stage, there is an option that the Opposition may even vote against my own Amendment Paper if the Minister is able to provide an explanation or a rationale that is suitable. But failing to do that—and perhaps seeking to take a call might be a good start—I guess, leaves us in a position where we will have to actually vote for the Amendment Paper, but that’s obviously not necessarily a bad thing. Is the Minister comfortable that Schedule 3 outlines all of the relevant pieces of legislation? In particular, when we look at what’s listed there, the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985—the definition is the only thing that is suggested to be repealed. Does the Minister believe that, because the definition of what is to be a regional fuel tax, under subsection (1) of section 2, would be repealed, that’s all that is required and that’s the end of that one?

The only other question I really have is in relation to the Legislation Act 2019 and whether there needs to be a list of any other pieces of legislation, given that the Legislation Act 2019 often captures a number of items there—although I note that the Land Transport Management Act, certainly the earlier part that the committee dealt with, was what was seeking to be repealed, or a subpart of that—Subpart 3, I think—whether the list contained in Schedule 3 is fulsome enough for the Minister.

I thank the member for their question in relation to the Search and Surveillance Act. So the current legislation provides powers to issue search warrants in respect of alleged offences. Alleged offences are in relation to whether or not the people who are—in relation to the keeping of records, and this is in relation to the tax. So, obviously, it’s all about making sure that the tax is being applied and being paid appropriately. So, obviously, when the tax was in place, it’s appropriate to have penalties for non-payment. Of course, you then also need powers in order to make sure that search warrants can be done, in respect of alleged offences.

In relation to the consequential amendments, as the member will have seen in the commencement clause—which of course we will come to shortly in Schedule 3—the items relating to the Goods and Services Tax Act, the Land Transport Act, the Search and Surveillance Act come into force on 1 July 2025, so those repeals don’t occur until the system is, effectively, wound down.

The question is that Part 2 stand part.

We come to Schedule 1. The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendments to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.

We come to Schedule 2. The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

We now come to Schedule 3. The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.