Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Thank you Mr Chair. I wish to speak to the tabled amendment in my name—there's a couple there. The one I'm speaking to in this call—and I am hopeful of taking additional calls to speak to other tabled amendments but the amendment in my name I'm speaking to in this case is a new clause 12 which would make an amendment to the Social Security Act 1964. The reason I have put forward this amendment is because we know through the submissions at the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we know through commentary out there in the media by those well-versed in this topic that regional fuel taxes are regressive taxes. They also have an impact on the cost of living for people out there who have to pay them.The reason why I've put this forward particularly is because of that impact on people when it comes to those who are living in greater poverty than the average person. Individuals who receive assistance from the State typically are ones that live furthest away from the CBD of a city. They typically are the ones that may drive the least fuel-efficient vehicles and they're the ones that would be hit hardest by a regional fuel tax.The recommendation that I put forward to the committee contained in this amendment would seek to insert a new section into the Social Security Act 1964. This section reads Any person who receives a payment under the provisions of this Act"—so anyone who receives a benefit essentially under the Social Security Act—"and primarily resides in a region that has an established regional fuel tax scheme"—in this case it would be Auckland initially but later on there will be other councils that have already put their hands up so it'll be wider than just Auckland. But anyone who primarily resides in that region that has an established regional fuel tax scheme under the provisions of Subpart 3 of the Land Transport Management Act—the ones that have already gone through—would be "eligible for an additional annual payment equal to the average cost … a person is projected to pay under a regional fuel tax in their region."I submit this to the committee because I think it's important that we recognise accurately and appropriately the impact on those people who can least afford to pay a regional fuel tax. Now it's imperfect. We can't always identify perfectly the people that would be hit hardest by a regional fuel tax or the people who would find it the hardest to pay a regional fuel tax because of their personal circumstances but we do have a relatively crude measure available to us and that's those that receive a benefit or receive a payment under the provisions of the Social Security Act.They are broad I know and there are many New Zealanders—tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders—that do receive a payment under the provisions of the Social Security Act. But I think the committee should carefully consider this amendment because it is very clear and very well understood—and I think even admitted by the Minister and his officials—that the people who would find it hardest to pay a regional fuel tax are those that are living at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. In fact the Minister when he's answered questions in the House around cost of living issues has in fact identified the fact that the Government has made changes to the Social Security Act and also made changes to benefit levels which would compensate those who would struggle paying a regional fuel tax. They point to the Families Package that they have.I submit to you that this particular amendment in fact adds on to that and it says even further that we as a committee wish the Parliament when it considers the third reading to include in this bill particular provisions that would make further amendments to the Social Security Act. If the people who are receiving a benefit payment under the Social Security Act are receiving such a payment they're the ones that are in need of greater assistance. The bill in its entirety would allow greater costs to be imposed on people.There is strong evidence that was presented at the select committee that those that are living in high-deprivation areas probably in areas that have a high number of people receiving a payment under the Social Security Act are the people that—and there's strong evidence that was put forward by Sam Warburton. I don't think it was modelled very much if at all by the ministry but there were other submitters that put forward particular arguments that they would be hit the hardest.But there were also arguments put forward by a particular submitter and I do talk about Sam Warburton's submission—[Bell rung] Thank you for the additional call; sorry everyone else. I do talk particularly to the submission of Sam Warburton because he's a transport economist. He previously worked for the Ministry of Transport and he has put a lot of emphasis in his personal and professional life into modelling how taxation in the transport sector impacts on people. He was very clear in his submission that regional fuel taxes—and indeed fuel taxes in general—are regressive and that those regressive taxes hurt people living in high deprivation the most. It's only reasonable that when we're considering a bill around implementing a regional fuel tax we make available to us the ability in Part 2 to consider additional policy changes and additional measures by making further changes to other pieces of legislation.The Minister himself has stood in this House in question time and said "There are means to compensate people for a regional fuel tax." I argue that the regional fuel tax is so damaging to people and so bad for people living under a proposed regional fuel tax scheme that we should do more. I in fact don't think it should be in place at all. In fact I think there are other ways in which transport infrastructure can be funded—we have canvassed those—but if this is going to go ahead and if there are going to be changes made to legislation which allow regional fuel tax schemes to be implemented then we should be doing everything we can to highlight the fact that this tax will hurt people that are at the lowest end and that need assistance more from the State.The Social Security Act is there for that very purpose. The Social Security Act is there because it says in a piece of legislation there are people that are living in particular situations where they need assistance from the State. The Social Security Act is there because it says there are people who by virtue of the circumstance they are in or by virtue of decisions they may have made in their life have ended up in a position where they need assistance. Well it's not just individuals in their own personal circumstance that are now being put into a position where additional costs are being put on to them; it's actually the Parliament that's about to legislate to allow further costs to be put in place. And if we're going to do that if we're going to allow—and this side disagrees with it but if the Parliament's going to allow greater taxation powers it has to be coupled with an acknowledgment that there's a need to make other measures available to people to compensate them for these issues.We've had a lot of debate in the Parliament through question time about the cost that would be imposed on people and the Government comes up with averages and they make it sound like it's a small amount of money because it's the cost of a cup of coffee. I'd say to the committee that it's probably unlikely that people receiving a payment under the Social Security Act are the Ponsonby dwellers that are sipping lattes every single day several times a day but they're the people that actually struggle the most and they're the people that probably can't afford a cup of coffee. But we do know through the evidence that was put forward in the select committee that the people that are living furthest away from the CBD the people that have the least fuel-efficient cars the people that can't afford to buy electric vehicles and the people that can't afford alternatives means of travel because they have to travel long distances to get to work are not going to be paying the cost of a cup of coffee. They're not going to be paying a small amount of money. They're probably going to be paying hundreds of dollars a year and their families—if they have two fuel-inefficient cars travelling long distances—will be paying several hundred dollars a year.Our officials our staff have calculated that's probably around about $700 a year. I know the Minister disagrees with that but at least in the way in which this is worded it would allow for an average cost to persons to be calculated. Now it would be accurate—it would be real-world information. It wouldn't be anything that the Government's spin-doctored or we've spin-doctored; it would be real information that the ministry would have to come up with to make a calculation under a proposed amendment to the Social Security Act to compensate these people.We must acknowledge that this bill puts in place additional costs on people. We must acknowledge that this is a regressive tax. We must acknowledge that we're hurting the cost of living for many New Zealanders out there. We must acknowledge that there should be changes made to legislation to allow it to happen.I see the Minister is signalling he'd like to take a call. We're looking forward to him taking a call saying why he doesn't agree with this—I assume he doesn't agree with this; I hope he actually agrees with this—but it's important that we address cost of living issues. It's important the Minister answers these important questions. We're looking forward to that."