Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister of Transport for giving us your full attention. I've got a couple of questions for you. In the explanatory note on the bill it says in the first paragraph that fuel prices in New Zealand have decreased slightly from the high points in 2022 when the initial discounts on fuel excise duty and road-user charges were offered. But I notice in the post-implementation regulatory assessment published in January 2023 the graph that shows tracking fuel prices appears to end in March 2022 with the price spike which was following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and what that did to world fuel prices. For some reason even though it's January 2023 this graph does not continue and show what fuel prices have done since then. That appears to be an omission and one which creates an impression that the facts of the situation are being manipulated. When I jumped on the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's (MBIE) fuel price monitor which is updated weekly what it showed me was the line I've drawn through here which shows that fuel prices are about $2.40 a litre for regular 91 which is not too much different from what they were in March 2022 prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So I'm wondering whether—in the explanatory note which sets out a general policy statement why this policy is necessary—in fact the most basic analysis of fuel price information from MBIE's weekly tracker has been undertaken. So Minister if you could answer that that would be good.The second question I have is around choices. My parliamentary colleague Julie Anne Genter made a good point earlier in the debate which is that every decision around allocation of road transport funding to various projects and how that funding is obtained is discretionary has trade-offs has costs and benefits. So Minister I'd like you to just consider in the post-implementation regulatory assessment officials point out that the cost of this policy to date is approximately $1.3 billion. Officials make the point that due to the reductions in revenue from this policy the Crown from general taxation is forced to backfill the lost revenue. Now we've heard today that the Prime Minister was unaware of how much his Government is taxing New Zealanders but it's a lot. It's in the order of $118 billion forecast this financial year which is a lot more than the $80 billion - odd that the Government was taxing New Zealanders when it came to power in 2017. So given that any of these decisions are about trade-offs did the Minister consider any other options? For example did the Minister consider cutting any of the other programmes that the National Land Transport Fund invests in such as say the communications spend of $117 million over three years for the Road to Zero programme or even—as much as I enjoy walking and the occasional cycle—the $670 million allocated to walking and cycling over that time frame or any of the other essentially discretionary spending that doesn't invest in the road network for road users which are motorists freight and all of those economic benefits that are derived from an efficient road network.So Minister is the information which the policy is based on accurate? Is there any omission? Did officials realise that after March 2022 the price of fuel spiked and then has returned to pre-March 2022 levels? And what other options did the Minister consider to fund this cut in road-user charges apart from general taxation? Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): In respect of the member's questions about the post-implementation review I think he's over-analysing the situation a little bit. There's no smoke and mirrors here; the post-implementation review is the review of the decisions that Cabinet made at that time. As I described in my previous answer to Mr Brown Cabinet was not able to get a full regulatory impact statement at the time because of the pace that the policy was developed and so agreed to do a post-implementation review. So the reason that the graph that Mr Court refers to on page 7 of that document goes through to March 2022 is because that is the information that Cabinet had in front of it upon which to make decisions and make judgments at the time that it made that decision. The post-implementation review is not about what we're doing now; it is about reviewing the policy that was determined then.I do note that further on in the document when there is some assessment as to the effectiveness of the policy—I'm looking at page 21 here—there is another time series which looks at how petrol prices moved over that time. Everyone is aware that there has been a moderation of petrol prices. The member himself said that is noted—I think in the explanatory note—that the reason the Government believes it's important to have this further extension is that notwithstanding that those prices are still somewhat elevated and there continue to be significant pressures on household budgets.This really goes to the member's second question which is really about the choices that the Government has in terms of how it can offer support to households under those conditions. The member notes that the total cost of the policy once extended will accrue to something in the order of $1.3 billion. The point I make to the member is this because the member and his party are often very interested in the efficiency of Government spend: this is a very efficient spend as compared to other ways of channelling money—for example through the transfers system and other payments. Effectively that $1.3 billion nearly all of it is $1.3 billion of cost that come out of household budgets and is absorbed by the Crown. There is very little friction or transaction costs in this policy. It's a simple mechanism because we stood it up last year. The ability to extend it as we have now done a couple of times is pretty simple to do as well. So it's a way in which we can quickly push through some of that benefit very very directly to households. I do note the post-implementation regulatory assessment notes that low-income households are likely most adversely affected by an increase in the price of fuel. While officials do think other options could have been looked at they also note that they would have taken longer to stand up. Again I return to comments I've made earlier in this debate around the fact that this isn't the only measure the Government is putting in place to provide support around cost of living. Indeed we have also made targeted payments over the course of the last year as one aspect of the policy.The member asks if I considered reducing certain activities in the National Land Transport Fund. Of course that is not my decision. The Waka Kotahi board is responsible for the investments that it makes within the National Land Transport Fund.