Nash Stuart: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1489. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):I would like to talk about clause 4 in Part 1 which inserts after section 14(2): “(3) Levies recovered under section 24 may be applied for the purpose of meeting the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Crown … set out in subsection (2)(ba)” etc. The thing that always concerns me about wording in these sorts of clauses—we are supporting this bill. Let us make no bones about that. We do support it. But sometimes you come across a clause and the wording just does not sound right.The reason I have a concern with this is the use of the word “may”. What this section says is that “Levies recovered under section 24 may be applied for the purpose …” of this. The reason I have such concerns about the word “may” is that it means that they may not be applied. So what could theoretically happen is that this levy raises more money than is needed to meet our international obligations and the Government then decides: “You know what? Let’s just put this into the consolidated fund. Let’s just put this into a bank account to pay for the Skycity Casino or whatever.” I would really like to see—and I am interested in why it says “may”. The Minister may be able to tell us.What I would really like to see in legislation like this especially in something that is imposing a cost on taxpayers—and we all acknowledge that it is a very small cost but it is a cost. The Government I think is hoping to raise $10 million. The section should read: “Levies recovered under section 24 must be applied for the purpose of meeting the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Crown.”What that does is it takes the ambiguity out of the legislation and it ensures that in fact every cent that is raised as part of this levy will go towards the purpose for which the bill is before the House. Without a “must” with just the word “may” it creates uncertainty and it means that the Government or the Minister of Energy and Resources or the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Finance has wiggle room to apply that money elsewhere. That would be outside the legislative intent of the bill and outside any sort of reasonable interpretation of the bill.We just need to tighten up this legislation when we are considering it at the select committee. What I would urge other select committees to do when there is such a tight thing like this is use a word like “must” so there is no ambiguity.There are a couple of other things I would also like to talk about in clause 5. Section 24(2)(b) in clause 5 states: “when any excise duty or excise-equivalent duty would be paid if any were payable.” The interesting thing about this is I have had a look through the bill. It is an amendment bill. It is not very big at all. But it does not set out when it has to be paid. There is a general assumption we can make that when your tax is due whether it is quarterly monthly annually or whenever it is due you pay it. But again just to remove that ambiguity in fees for lawyers and this sort of stuff I say that it is good just to set down when the tax is due.The reason I say that is that it says here: “Section 28 (which provides a penalty for late payment of a levy) does not apply in respect of the levy.” I am looking at this going: “Why would you not have a penalty for the late payment of this levy when most other legislation to do with tax or excise duties or anything like this actually has a late payment regime in place?”. Again maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Nicky Wagner might be able to enlighten us on this. But I would have thought it is just good practice to make sure that levies are paid on time. The reason that there are penalties for the late payment of levies is just to facilitate on-time payment. I just do not know why they have decided to remove the late penalty. It may be—and I am making an assumption here—that it is because the levy is so small that in the scheme of things any penalty would be negligible. In fact it may cost more to enforce a penalty or to chase a penalty than it would be worth to actually pick up the levy that is due.As mentioned we do want to raise about $10 million. As Iain Lees-Galloway I believe alluded to we do support this. The New Zealand Government has to be a good citizen when it comes to all of our international treaties and this is part of the Agreement on an International Energy Program so there is no contention. We are not saying this should not be paid. I am just bringing up a couple of questions that I have some concerns about which I think should have been addressed at the select committee. It is possibly a little late to address them now but it is stuff we need to look at when we are writing other legislation on this.Also if we go down to clause 8—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Stuart Nash.STUART NASH: There are just a couple more points I want to make on this. If we go down to clause 8—and again I am unsure why they have changed the wording. The wording used to be—this is where we talk obviously about the payment of the levy—“Payment into Departmental Bank Account”. It has changed to say “Payment of levy into account”. I do not know whether we are going to see a raft of legislation where all the wording is changed from departmental bank account to account but the sort of conspiracy theorist in me goes back to the “may be used for levies” and “must be paid into a Government account” and again I wonder whether this is a way to sort of get around the fact that the Government needs $10 million to meet its obligations under the international energy agreement. It is going to collect in a good year maybe $15 million so what it can say is: “Let’s just take that other $5 million and use it in the consolidated account.” But I am unsure why it has changed it from a “Departmental Bank Account” into an “account”.There is something else in the legislation I would like to bring up and it is not a criticism of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment but it is really a point of process. What it says here in section 33(3) in clause 9 is: “Before recommending that regulations be made under this section the Minister must consult persons or organisations considered by the Minister to represent the persons affected by the levy concerned.” and that is fantastic. I mean consultation is part of making good legislation and getting feedback from key stakeholders is a vital part of ensuring that legislation is robust and meets the needs of the taxpayer as well as the Government.So I had a look at the ministry report and it talks about external consultation. I actually think that because it is in this legislation there is compulsion to consult—we all agree with that. I look at the report and I would have liked the ministry to actually list whom it consulted with. All it has said is: “15 submissions were received and of these 10 contained direct comments on issues relating to the IEA obligation.” Then it says: “The vast majority of submitters …”. When you have got 15 submitters is the vast majority 13? Is it 10? I do not know what “the vast majority” means.Then it says: “Prior to the release of the discussion document the Ministry discussed the levy proposal with a number of key stakeholders.” I would have thought that in this instance in a Government ministry the size of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—and it is a large large ministry—it would at least put down the people whom it had consulted with so that members of Parliament and members of the public could say: “Oh OK it did talk to the Automobile Association as a wide-ranging advocate for motorists.” I am assuming it talked to the Automobile Association but one thing we do know with legislation and one thing we do know with this Government is that you can never assume anything. So one thing I would have liked to know is whom did it consult with because it is a legislative requirement to consult.Obviously when we are developing legislation we can argue that the select committee process is in fact legislative consultation and we get that. But because this is actually a legislative requirement for the Minister to consult—because the bill does regard levies and it does regard money raised by an Order in Council at a time that the Minister may deem necessary. Consultation is important but we just need to know—in fact I think we have the right to know—who actually has been consulted with so that we know that it was not just Joe down the road and Bill round the corner and Joan up the hill.There are a number of agencies. You know what I mean. That do a fantastic advocacy job on behalf of motorists and taxpayers and with 15 submissions it would have taken I suspect a third of a page to list who the submitters were. It might have been Joe and Jane and Bill but it also might have been the Automobile Association and the road transport authority and all these other ones. But the other thing is more important even if the ministry did not list the submitters I actually think that it should have listed the key stakeholders that it consulted with because then at least we would have known whom it considers the key stakeholders to be.So just to sum up on this—I am talking about Part 1; I do know thank you Jami-Lee Ross that we are now taking this debate as one question—we do support this bill. It is a pragmatic step actually. I think the cost if I am not wrong is 0.05c for every full litre of petrol or other type of fuel that goes into an engine except biofuel. But we can talk about that later. Thank you very much.