Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill. The National Party while we will be supporting this piece of legislation will not be supporting the urgency motion because guess what? This was policy on the hoof by a Government reacting to a bad poll trying to find a way to ease the cost of living. And guess what? This policy does not do what New Zealanders actually need it to do and does not go far enough. The Minister talked about this legislation being needed urgently to deal with the 42-day requirement for notice of new road-user charge (RUC) rates. Well I tell you what—I've just done the calculation and this policy was announced on 14 March and it won't be implemented under this legislation until 21 April and that is 38 days. So all that we're doing here is saving four days. What's the Minister been doing for the last three weeks? If this was policy that was well-thought-through and was something that was actually being seriously considered in response to the war in Ukraine the Minister would have had this legislation before Parliament weeks ago to actually make sure that New Zealanders could get relief at the petrol pump and could get relief if they drive diesel vehicles.Let me also put some other dates out there for the Minister. The explanatory note of the bill says that this bill is responding to the fuel price increase around the world following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Well I just looked at the calendar and the Russian invasion started on 24 February and the announcement wasn't made until 14 March. Well that's about another 20 days. But what happened in between those two dates? On 10 March out came a very bad poll for the Government. So what are we doing here? The explanatory note of the bill says the bill is about responding to the fuel crisis around the world. Actually this was about responding to a poll that had National ahead of Labour for the first time in two years and this Government was desperately looking in their drawer for something they could pull out and they said Oh I know what we'll do. We'll make an announcement and then we'll think about the details later." Well I tell you this piece of legislation—whilst we support providing this relief to taxpayers because they deserve it and they are suffering from a cost of living crisis—does not go the distance that's required to actually address those cost of living pressures. This is a temporary piece of legislation. It is something that only deals with the issue in a very small manner but doesn't actually address the fundamental issues that New Zealanders are facing.Rents are up $150 per week under this Government. That didn't happen because of the Ukraine crisis and the war in Ukraine. Fruit and vegetable prices are up. Inflation is at 5.9 percent and that was before the invasion of Ukraine—that happened and now they're saying "Well actually we're going to blame it all on Ukraine." Well this Government needs to take some responsibility. This cost of living crisis has happened under their watch and they need to take some responsibility and actually address it.How long did it take for this Government to even say the word "crisis"? Ages. They said "Yes there are challenges facing New Zealanders there are concerns and we are very concerned. There are pressures facing New Zealanders." But they weren't even prepared to acknowledge that there was a cost of living crisis facing New Zealanders.Hon Member: Why?SIMEON BROWN: Because they caused most of it—that is the real reason. Their policies have caused New Zealanders to be paying for this cost of living crisis. We heard the Minister talk about how the rapid increase in fuel costs is a result of the war in Ukraine. Well I tell you what—two years ago the cost of a litre of 91 was under $2.00. Then it crept up to close to $2.80 and then we had the war in Ukraine which tipped it over $3. These were not pressures that built overnight. These were pressures that were building on hard-working middle-income families and low-income families for many many months prior and this Government ignored them until that poll came through.But of course then they made the announcement and they had to work through the detail. And it took them three weeks from the announcement until yesterday and legislation actually coming before Parliament. It took three whole weeks to work through the details. They first had to work out what is an equivalent reduction in RUC rates as we've done for the petrol excise reduction. Well they did the petrol excise one very quickly because the legislation allows for that. They then took a number of days just working out what the same percentage was. We had to wait over a week for a press release just to say the percentage is a 36 percent reduction. So why did we not have legislation then at that point brought to the House to actually deal with the issue?Then we've got a number of other issues and the National Party will be bringing these issues out throughout this debate on this bill as we do not believe they have been addressed by this piece of legislation. The announcement was made on 14 March but people who drive diesel vehicles still have to wait till 21 April to be able to get their discounted RUC rate. They have to wait a total of 38 days. There's no retrospective ability for them to make an application. What if they went and purchased their RUC in between those two days? Some people particularly trucking firms are only able to have a maximum of one month as the Minister has said before they have to pay the next bill. In that 38-day period they've had to go load up with a whole lot more RUCs. They don't get the reduction. If this is such an emergency and an urgent issue and the Government is trying to make out that they're responding urgently to the crisis that is happening why are they forcing some parts of the roading sector to not have the opportunity to wait for these reduced fees to come through and why does this legislation not allow them to make an application to have a refund?We also note that this piece of legislation gives the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) a whole lot more power to now go around and work out whether someone is purchasing excessive or unreasonable numbers of kilometres on their RUCs. What does excessive or unreasonable kilometres mean? There no definition of what excessive or unreasonable means. It basically says that the NZTA will have the power to effectively determine what they think is excessive or unreasonable taking into account the objective of the temporary reduction scheme taking into account how the person uses it. How many people are going to be employed by NZTA to run around and make sure that everyone who's been—Hon Member: With a clipboard.SIMEON BROWN: A lot of clipboards—right. I can see them with their clipboards checking to see—"Oh no Scott Simpson you're very good. You drive an EV so you're not captured." But they'll be making sure that they have a clipboard and they check: "Oh no you've got another 500 kilometres this month." or "You've got 1000 kilometres in the last three months. That must be excessive. We're going to have to put you through a complicated formula which is noted in the bill." I think it's (a – b) x (c – d) = e.Matt Doocey: Oh the old one.SIMEON BROWN: So there we are—the old formula. They'll work you through a formula to work out whether you have exceeded the "unreasonable" test that the Minister has put into this piece of legislation. And the Minister will have I don't know how many people with clipboards running around and making sure they review everyone's RUC purchases over the next three months to ensure that they are not being unreasonable or excessive in how many kilometres of RUCs they are purchasing.The National Party will be looking at these issues. We'll be asking the questions that we won't even have a short select committee period to address. We'll be asking questions around why people who may have had to have purchased within that 38-day period will not have the opportunity to get a refund and whether 36 percent is actually an equivalent. We know that 36 percent is effectively the same percentage reduction but some people may use a lot of fuel but not travel that many miles particularly if it's a trucking firm where the amount of fuel in relation to how many kilometres they do is not actually an equivalent measure and so whether they are actually getting an equivalent reduction is something that should be questioned and looked into.We need to make sure that the assessment and this extra regulation is not being over-burdensome and regulatory. So we will be supporting this piece of legislation. We don't believe it goes far enough. We don't believe this Government is listening to New Zealanders and understanding the cost of living crisis that New Zealanders are facing but at least they are doing something small which will help in a small way. So we can support the bill."