Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): This particular part of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill refers mainly but not only to the question of refunds. What it does is increase the rate of refunds to people who are entitled to them. The regulation refers to section 41 of the principal Act which in this case is the Land Transport Management Act. There is a group of individuals and companies that is exempt from paying the taxation that other people pay in this area.The first point that I want to question the Minister of Transport on is the rate. I see that the rate of refund is 3.45c which is a 3c increase in the goods and services tax. That is the amount that is refunded. The question that I want to ask the Minister is whether this is a deliberate over-refunding. Someone who pays the extra 3c and GST and gets the GST as a deduction are they not double-dipping?What this does is exempt people. We will use the example of the few people in the electorate of Mr Hayes who do get a refund in the area. There are a number of his wealthy National Party colleagues National Party members who do get a refund by way of using the farm vehicles—or more likely the farm trust vehicles—for transport. These people will have an increase of 3c plus GST and 6c plus GST and 9c plus GST under the part of the bill that has just been passed. What happens is that they will be able to apply for a refund if they are in the exempt group. I think there is debate about whether they should be in the exempt group or not—and I will say just by way of an aside that the exempt group is sometimes quite broad. For example there are an unusual number of what are known as “Queen Street tractors” that spend their time around the halls of residence of Dunedin students. These are trust-owned vehicles. The cards that are used to drive them belong to trusts that are associated with farms or with other companies. It is a clear tax rort. It is a matter of keeping the general rate of tax and sometimes—and it is a particular outrage—these students are entitled to student allowances because of the trust arrangements of the family finances whereas peoplefrom normal working class families are not because they happen to declare their income and pay their tax in an appropriate way.The point that I want to get back to and the question that I want to ask the Minister is why it is 3c in the first part of the bill and then 3.45c in Part 2. I can accept that people pay the 3.45c extra. They pay at the bowser or generally actually more often what happens is that there is a delivery for the farm vehicles which then gets hosed into the family car. That is the approach that tends to happen. I have spent quite a bit of time in rural areas. Once or twice I might have been paid in petrol myself but I would never confirm that. It was a long time ago when I was young.Grant Robertson: That was a long time ago.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is right. We used to have to crank the cars at that particular stage to get them started.Carol Beaumont: Ha ha!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Do not laugh Carol Beaumont. I have cranked a few cars in my time to get them going.Grant Robertson: Move on.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Behave yourself. The important point and the one that I want to focus on in this call and the next one—but there is a further point to make in my following calls—is that people pay 3.45c a litre including the GST. They get a 3.45c refund but that is not GST-inclusive. So people pay 3c plus GST and get a 3.45c refund but the GST that they have paid is deductible against their GST liability.The question that I have is whether or not we have a case of Bill English whether we have “Double Dipton”—“Double Dipton”—being reinforced as part of this bill. I would be interested in the learned—no sorry; he is not a lawyer—the honourable Minister’s view on this matter as to whether in fact we are getting any double-dipping here.There are some areas that we will not argue with as far as this part is concerned. Overall it is a mixture. For example it does include a refund for search and rescue vehicles including boats. Well I think that if a vehicle is genuinely used only for that purpose or if petrol is put into it for search and rescue purposes then that is something that is acceptable. One of the questions I have is whether foreign fishing boats come into this category or not.Grant Robertson: I think they do.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well I am not sure. I am not sure of the exact fuel that they use. Part of the question is whether it is appropriate to exempt fuel that is used for commercial purposes other than fuel in a motor vehicle. I think there is a dilemma here. I think that if the Government is genuine about closing the loopholes then in fact it would be better to look at some of these uses under section 5(2) of the Land Transport Management (Apportionment and Refund of Excise Duty and Excise-Equivalent Duty) Regulations 2004. The other point is that it says in section 5(3) that “Nothing in this regulation applies to any motor spirits compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas”—does anyone use liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) any more? Is LPG still—Iain Lees-Galloway: A few taxis.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: A few taxis still use it—“used as fuel for a motor vehicle that is mainly used in vehicle races or trials or other sporting events.” Well is that fair? I mean why can the farmer get a refund but the professional racing driver cannot get one? Either it is part of your business or it is not.I think what we are in danger of here is reinforcing some inequities in this legislation. I think we do need to look at the amendments that were made on 29 March 2007 and their relevance in this particular case. I think that one of the dangers we have when we have this sort of approach to decision making is that we get the danger of inconsistencies. The point I was making earlier is that we have been described in thepast as the fastest lawmakers in the West. We are unicameral. We do not have a second Chamber and that is why we should be really careful when we do anything that affects ordinary Kiwis either by way of regulation or under urgency. And the trouble with this is that it appears to be doing both.We appear to be passing legislation in this House that affects regulations that overrides and changes regulations and we are doing it under urgency. And with all due respect to members opposite I am not sure that we have had any evidence during this extended sitting day of a level of competence on the part of the Government to get the legislation right. It is something that is pretty basic. Thank you Mr Sabin the former policeman for nodding and agreeing with me. I hope he is not going to sleep.