Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): This is only week two of the 2023 parliamentary year and already we have an example of extremely poor lawmaking which offers New Zealanders an example of what a Labour Government will continue to do indefinitely unless they're held to account by the ACT Party.This regulatory impact assessment of this bill which proposes to cut revenues from road users to the tune already of $1.3 billion in 10 months $115 million a month and instead either borrow that money or add $1.3 billion maybe $1.5 billion a year to taxpayers' tax bills.This bill proposes to extend a policy that was an emergency response to the fuel price spikes after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This bill should not be extended for one day longer. This Government has failed to address long-term problems with infrastructure funding and financing. In fact this bill makes that problem much much worse.Minister Michael Wood sat in a truncated committee of the whole House stage and explained that this policy was highly effective even though officials point out in this document prepared after the fact—10 months after this policy came into effect last year—that in fact it would be far more preferable if the Government was worried about the cost of living to transfer taxpayer funds through welfare schemes for example to people who most needed it.Instead this is a shotgun firehose of $1.3 billion of taxpayers' funds in only 10 months—with five more years potentially to roll on this program; $7 billion to $8 billion of spending potentially—for a policy that officials described as At this time no formal or comprehensive evaluation work has been completed by the ministry on this policy." They don't know if it works; they don't know if it actually helps reduce the cost of living.But what we do know is at a time that New Zealand roads have been devastated by flood events by storm events—and I'm not just talking about the January and February 2023 events. We look at State Highway 1 and the Mangamukas that connects Kaitāia to Whangārei; we look at that road and we say "Well the Minister said he's going to spend $100 million of taxpayer funds fixing that up." That road's been closed since August last year. Trucks need to detour 90 minutes through unsuitable roads to get goods and freight to Kaitāia—food fuel and other materials—and to bring from Kaitāia and Northland things that they make that earn money for Northland: dairy products timber products from the Juken mill from Kaitāia. An extra 90 minutes for each truck an extra 90 minutes each driver spends in the cab an extra 90 minutes of fuel usage. Instead of prioritising the repair the rehabilitation the resilience the safety and efficiency of New Zealand roads the Minister believes that instead the Government should offer a road-user charge cut to motorists. Some of them could be driving a 1990 Toyota Hilux Surf—that's a fantastic vehicle. But even somebody driving a Toyota Hilux Surf who gets the benefit of this pays. They pay for the pleasure of a Labour Government announcement—$1.3 billion is what it's cost Kiwi taxpayers.So the ACT Party won't be supporting this; this is an example of terrible lawmaking using the Russian invasion of Ukraine which happened in March 2022 and the petrol price spike that happened shortly after as an excuse to persist with this policy even though—even though—the Minister admitted that fuel prices have come back to what they were roughly before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. On that basis there's no justification for this policy.If the Minister wanted to relieve the pressure of the costs of living on taxpayers' pockets; on Kiwis' pockets; on motorists what the Minister could do instead—and this is what I suggested—is look to reprioritise some of the projects funded under the National Land Transport Programme. As much as I like walking and cycling—I walk to work as often as I can; I ride a bike particularly with my son as often as I can—those are personal choices. Yet the National Land Transport Programme allocates $670 million to walking and cycling over three years.That surely must be optional spending at this time when our roads and highways—particularly in the North Island—have been devastated by floods slips and are still subject to natural hazards. Roads that as a roading engineer I look at and I know full well have not been evaluated for their performance and suitability most likely since the 1980s. So in my entire lifetime as a driver most of the roads and highways—apart from those fantastic new four-lane and six-lane roads around the Waikato Auckland and Wellington like Transmission Gully—are no different to when I got my driver's licence in the 1980s. It's a sad indictment of all Governments since then—of all stripes.That's why ACT proposes new solutions to fund roads and infrastructure. Here we are here's the solution that we propose—ACT's solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature. Instead of giving with one hand a rebate on road-user charges to one group of New Zealanders while taking from another—the taxpayers that will fund the $1.3 billion this policy's already cost; maybe the $7 billion to $8 billion it will cost over five years—what ACT would propose is in fact we move away from this road-user pricing scheme altogether; road-user charges. We move away from fuel excise duties and we instead replace this archaic and outdated scheme which doesn't account for electric vehicles; it doesn't account for the fact that hydrogen-powered trucks and buses are coming on our road because it doesn't collect any revenue from them. Instead we move away from fuel excise duties and road-user charges to a system of road pricing. That is fair. And the reason it's much fairer on Kiwis is because they have a choice whether they drive at peak times. This is what's been proven in the UK in London where they introduced road pricing to reduce congestion in London: that people chose not to drive at peak times rather than incur the charge. For those who must drive at peak times—delivery drivers truck and trailer drivers delivering quarry rock and concrete to project sites—they will pay the charge because it's important that they get their load they get their delivery there on time.It's a much fairer system. For people who do need a car for work instead of paying these blanket fuel excise duties and road-user charges—which accrue to billions and billions of dollars a year—and receiving a fraction of the benefits only one-third of the National Land Transport Fund—all of that money collected from motorists—only one-third of the $15 billion is actually spent on road maintenance and road construction: $5 billion out of the $15 billion.This Minister said not a single project will be reprioritised potentially to fund this road-user charge discount—not a single project—and that the money would come from somewhere; that we shouldn't worry. Don't worry taxpayers of New Zealand; don't worry road users. There's nothing to see here. This is a payment a benefit that will help you during this cost of living crisis. It's nonsensical. It's illogical. We heard similar arguments from Shanan Halbert the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.I'm disappointed. I didn't realise when I came to Parliament I'd be facing people who talk such nonsense who couldn't engage in a rational debate who use falsehoods and gaslighting—falsehoods and gaslighting—pretending the fuel price is the same as it was in March 2022. But that's what we're facing here. And ACT offers a different alternative; we offer long-term reform—Sarah Pallett: Point of order Madam Speaker. I believe that the language used by the speaker was inappropriate in the House particularly with regard to accusatory of falsehood.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Sorry?Sarah Pallett: The speaker was accusing the Labour Party of falsehood.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): When he was using "gaslighting"?Sarah Pallett: He directly accused Shanan Halbert of falsehood.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.SIMON COURT: Point of order Madam Speaker. Would the member care to elaborate on the falsehood?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The accusation and the use of Shanan Halbert—which by the way he's not even in the House—is also out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise.SIMON COURT: Not wishing to litigate that point of order; I did not refer to the member Shanan Halbert as being out of the House. I referred to him as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and I referred to statements he had made in the second reading of this bill which he claimed were the justification for this policy. Yet the statement here—the regulatory impact statement here—actually contradicts what both the Minister and Shanan Halbert said.Camilla Belich: Point of order Madam Speaker. We clearly heard on this side of the House the reference to the member Shanan Halbert and the word "falsehood" used by the member. So I don't think it's up to our side to elaborate on that. It's a point of order in relation to something which is against the Standing Orders.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I'm not going to take another point of order Nicole McKee because I do recall that he did use the term "falsehood". The member will withdraw and apologise.SIMON COURT: I withdraw and apologise. So let's be clear: the ACT Party is offering an alternative. That alternative is long-term reform of road pricing funding and financing. We want to see New Zealand's roads built to withstand the next flood.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member is out of time. Are there any other members taking calls on this bill?"