Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Well I just wish I was an expert in transport matters. I just wish I had that expertise and was able to draw on that wealth of experience I must have had before I came into Parliament!That speech I've just listened to was very confused unfortunately. I'll come back to some of the stuff that was raised in that speech but here we are: we're talking about a wellbeing Budget. I think that the term wellbeing" is going to be like one of those words that—you know we all heard them in years gone by—everyone picked up on: "unique selling point" "strategic stuff"; you know all those words that everyone loves to use. And the Wellbeing Budget that everyone talks about—of course no one really understands except for this sort of glow of happiness that we're all meant to have. But unfortunately this Budget doesn't achieve that. It does provide some stuff that will progress certain aspects but unfortunately on the balance of it I don't think it achieves what it should be and what it would have been and what it could have done actually given the situation where we are currently.I think the first thing is that here we are talking about the "Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (blah blah blah) Amendment Bill". It's the first tax to be introduced the first piece of legislation after this Wellbeing Budget that they're introducing—the very first thing out of everything that was raised in that Budget. So it's all about increasing the petrol levies basically.Hon David Bennett: Plus GST.ANDREW BAYLY: That's right—and GST Mr Bennett. The fascinating thing is why would you be introducing a first bill which is about raising tax when you're trying to achieve better outcomes for New Zealanders? The first thing everyone knows about these types of petrol taxes is that they're regressive. That means the poorer people are the worst ones off. That is Economics 101 and yet this is the first bill that that Government puts up. That I cannot understand.But also let's just talk about the context of tax. So this is a tax—Hon Shane Jones: He's a howler—wait for it a howl's coming.ANDREW BAYLY: Mr Jones this is a piece of tax—that additional tax you want to put in. So I was just running through the numbers. Interestingly personal tax in the Budget in your lovely Wellbeing Budget you put forward has gone from $36 billion in 2018 and under your glowing Wellbeing Budget New Zealanders—ordinary people in New Zealand not people sitting in Parliament—are going to end up paying $13 billion of additional tax over the next four years. That Government over there is going to take another $12 billion of additional tax off ordinary New Zealanders in the form of personal tax. We also know that GST is going up. So of course that's—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member needs to come to the bill.ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. That is going to go up and company tax is going to go up. So what I'm saying to you is that you have a tax take that is going from $72 billion—Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Look I know that the term "spirit" is in the bill but the taxation and company tax—that's another bill. We're talking about motor spirits. So can the member come back to it or we'll begin to think that it's a different spirit that's guiding him.Tim van de Molen: Speaking to the point of order—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No I don't need any help thank you. Yes it's a serious matter to interrupt a member while they're speaking. It's the role of the Speaker to make those decisions around relevance. Even the unkindest person might say that a number of speeches in this debate have been vaguely relevant but that's my decision. We are under urgency. I did interrupt the member. I felt that he was beginning to have more of a Budget debate speech rather than speaking to the first reading of this bill. So if members could speak to Part 1 and Part 2 of the bill while they are having other conversations—or contributions I should say—to this bill that would be a good thing.ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So the context for this is that under this Government tax is going to go from $72 billion to $100 billion so why do you need to now introduce another tax bill as the first bill up? That's my point. You have already—"you" as in the Government Mr Assistant Speaker. The Government is already raking in heaps of money under current settings and the very first thing that they do is introduce a bill trying to impose more tax on wellbeing and New Zealanders unfortunately and I just do not get that logic.The other thing about this bill is that it still doesn't address the issue around what it's going to do for our horticulture growers or those people who are paying diesel tax and how those arrangements are doing. So not only is this bad for motorists; it's also bad for the productive sectors of our economy.I just want to refer back to this issue around what this Government is trying to do in terms of transport. Of course we've heard Julie Anne Genter the previous speaker talk about safety and I know that about $800 million has been assigned to safety improvements—this move to mode changes. But as the Hon Paul Goldsmith my colleague mentioned earlier the congestion is the issue now. That's not to say we shouldn't be putting money into rail. That's not to say we shouldn't be looking at other modes of transport. But the thing about this is it's fine to upgrade what you've got but what you haven't got you can't upgrade because it hasn't been built. That's the issue. We've got a deficiency. That is the issue about how we need to make sure that New Zealand has the transport infrastructure and that means principally roads but it doesn't mean it exclusively.I think that with the Auckland Transport Alignment Programme it was a big programme—28 billion bucks—that was agreed between the National Government and the Auckland Council as an example—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry I walked in on something earlier and I wasn't quite sure what the acting Speaker was saying but what I want to indicate to the member is that it's a very narrow bill. It's a revenue bill and it's not a spending bill and therefore the debate on it as this stage go on gets narrow. It gets slightly wider at the second reading. I think he's making a speech which could well fit at the second reading but it's not a first reading speech which is on this bill.Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that ruling. What we've seen throughout this debate has been quite a straying from speakers on both sides of the House—I'll admit it—in terms of the breadth with which they've covered this topic. So to now close that down on a very narrow focus for the last few remaining speakers presents a slightly different profile of what they're able to enact on and I would ask whether we can have consistency through the remaining stages of this bill.SPEAKER: The short answer is that we will have consistent rulings going forward on this and I would like to remind the member that when I have made a ruling he shouldn't then be questioning it. The rulings will be consistent for the rest of this debate and the other first readings.ANDREW BAYLY: OK. So the relevance of this bill is directly related to the issue of the Auckland Transport Alignment Programme because it's an element in its funding. That is why getting agreement around that Auckland Transport Alignment Programme is very very important and this is part of making sure that that can occur. But the issue we've got is how this money is funded and as I've said before it's the regressive nature of this and the most pernicious thing about this is how it disadvantages the poor and the people who are the most vulnerable in New Zealand.I think the issue about this is that I heard the Minister of Transport in his opening speech talk about what he's doing with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and he talked about "We've sorted NZTA out." I've just got to say that I totally disagree with his opening comments on this bill because we've got the Southern Motorway which is already a year behind schedule and one of the reasons why it's a year behind schedule is that there's been an incredible focus on building a cycleway down the left-hand side of that motorway—SPEAKER: Order! Second warning.ANDREW BAYLY: So this cycleway is part of what this bill is being funded for and the Associate Minister of Transport referred to it directly in her speech before. So if that was a big part of the funding of this excise tax I'd have to say the purpose of this bill and the purpose of this funding is very very susceptible to elements of the funding network for the transport to actually not deal with the issue of what the needs of people are in terms of meeting their transport needs.The Minister also spoke in his opening speech about the electrification to Pukekohe. Again that is an issue that has not been progressed under this Government. It is a piece of action that is missing significantly in the entire mix that the Minister referred to.Also Mill Road is another example that he referred to. I'd have to remind the Minister that the money that comes out of this exercise is not actually being—Hon Phil Twyford: "Exercise tax".ANDREW BAYLY: It's exercised as part of the Auckland project. It's the start of the funding that comes out of this excise tax. The Minister suggested before in his speech that it's being applied to Mill Road but actually that is not correct. Only part of Mill Road is being built and that is the most disappointing thing.So if you're going to introduce a bill to increase the price of petrol and diesel for all motorists in New Zealand please—and I'd just say this—make sure it's going to projects that benefit all New Zealanders. Pet projects like that are not the ones that will help reduce congestion which is the main part of this.I think this issue of non-delivery around these major projects which this excise tax is meant to be directed to is one of the most disappointing things. I just find it absolutely absurd that this is the first bill that the Government would put up after this so-called Wellbeing Budget.SPEAKER: Before I call Aupito William Sio I just want to warn all members speaking from now on that we will be talking to this revenue bill not to any expenditure matters which might be better dealt with in other legislation and there'll be some balancing up in the second reading."