edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. This is only my second call today and I wanted to delve a little bit into a number of areas that I've been working on over the years with people who live particularly in the Maungakiekie electorate. Those are particularly around for example bus improvements in areas like around Sylvia Park which is the busiest shopping mall in the country and an area that deserves improvement so that people can get around. I also have a few questions—specifically around road safety walking and cycling routes—to the Minister as well. I have worked over the last few years with groups of mums and dads who've been walking their children to local schools. What they would really like is for their children to be able to cycle to schools together and to be able to do it safely.Now I get that we're not delving into specific projects that are being removed by the dismantling of this structure through this particular repeal bill—I get that—but what I really want to ask the Minister about is the gaps because ultimately what we're talking about is 11 projects that will not go ahead which in its entirety means that infrastructure that would have allowed children to be able potentially to cycle to schools or people to be able to get to their busiest local mall is not there. So there is a gap and I do want to know what advice the Minister's received about plugging some of those gaps.I do want to know what the thinking was behind addressing those significant and intractable issues that Aucklanders are facing. For example I mean since 2017 we've seen reports saying that Auckland is in the midst of a road-safety crisis. Death and serious injuries have increased by 70 percent between 2014 and 2017. That's three times more than what the rest of the country has experienced. In Ellerslie in a suburb in Maungakiekie alone there's been a huge amount of work and there's been advocacy that's gone into some of the road-safety improvements that are required to be able to save lives essentially. So I'd like to know: what thinking and what advice has the Minister received in terms of plugging some of those gaps?I also want to know from a disability perspective because some of the capital projects that will be lost as a result of this repeal bill were meant to address accessibility deficiencies and I see that specifically listed in the Order in Council. So I'd like to know from a disability perspective as well: where is the gaps analysis? Has there been any consultation with our disability communities—with our disabled people—for whom using roads is already unsafe to ensure that there will be perhaps other road safety improvements that will help them?Finally my former colleague Marja Lubeck was a huge supporter of the Penlink project and I just have a quick clarification question for the Minister because I know that steady progress has been made since 2020. The sod was turned over a year ago. What's stopping it? It's under one of the projects listed in terms of it being stopped and I'd really like to know whether it does stay or what exactly happens to that project as well. Thank you Madam Chair.
McCallum Grant; Pugh MaureenGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move that debate on this question now end.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'm sorry there was a problem with the motion that was put. So we'll have one more go.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. I mean the first question from Arena Williams is not relevant to this bill. This bill is repealing the regional fuel tax. If the Government was to make other policy changes in regards to other types of funding and financing for infrastructure that is something which would be done separately. So it's not relevant to the bill which is in front of us.In relation to the question around in-ground projects again that question has been asked multiple times. I would note though that the regional fuel tax was not proposing to spend any money on Mill Road because the last Government cancelled it.
McCallum Grant; Pugh MaureenGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take another call I want to remind people again that we are not discussing or debating projects that are no longer in the bill. OK?
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): There's a couple of questions there in relation to one from Ricardo Menéndez March from the Green Party in relation to the cost of living. This will have a cost of living impact by reducing the cost of petrol for Aucklanders and that is something which is of course good news to people in Auckland and I know has significant support from the people of Auckland.In relation to the question from Camilla Belich I have answered a range of very similar questions in relation to particular Amendment Papers which we've said we're not supporting. Because ultimately we were elected to remove this tax we're removing it on 30 June this year. There will only be a certain amount of remaining funding and we have prioritised that remaining funding to the projects listed in the bill and that is what we're doing through this legislation.
Bidois Dan; Pugh MaureenDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Camilla Belich—oh sorry she's not here.Camilla Belich: I am here.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh you are here. Good on you.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move That debate on this question now close.
Wade-Brown Celia; Brown Simeon; Pugh MaureenCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I do have some further questions for the Minister of Transport. Given that he was not interested in responding about either the increased personal costs of injury and death nor the cost to the Government of increased health I will focus on the very immediate cost of living question. The median distance of travel to school in metro urban authorities is just over 2 kilometres. Is it cheaper for a family let's say with two children to encourage their children to walk to school or to have to buy a second car to drive them there? Is it cheaper to have cycle lanes and footpaths or to increase the health budget? And is it cheaper to catch a bus or to drive and pay for parking in Tāmaki-makau-rau?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Look I think there's a range of questions in relation to a range of transport policies. I mean ultimately what we're doing here is removing the Auckland regional fuel tax which removes 10c a litre plus GST off the cost of fuel in Auckland. That is what this Government does. That's what the legislation does.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call—I'm just checking to see who has taken the call—the Hon Deborah Russell.
Salesa Jenny; Brown SimeonHon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Thank you very much Madam Chair e te Māngai o te Whare. I have a few questions for the Minister on the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill Part1 particularly on clause 4 and clause 5. My first question is: how will the Minister ensure that the abolition of the regional fuel tax does not adversely affect the funding of current and future transport projects in Auckland especially those that are critical to reducing and improving the public transportation system? My second question is: can the Minister explain how the alternative funding mechanisms he proposes will replace the revenue previously generated under the regional fuel tax and how will these be implemented to ensure the continuity of long-term transport infrastructure in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland?My third question: can the Minister detail the transitional provisions that will be put in place to manage the wind-up process of the current scheme to ensure a minimal disruption to all ongoing and planned projects in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland?My fourth question and this is in terms of clause 5 particularly the savings provisions of clause 5: how will the Minister ensure that the savings provisions protect the already committed funds and projects that were to be financed by the regional fuel tax and what measures will he put in place to ensure that these projects are completed as planned?And my final question—this time—number five: what legislative and regulatory changes will be required to effectively wind up the regional fuel tax scheme and what is the time line for these changes? Thank you Madam Chair.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. Again thank you for some of the questions that were asked in relation to projects—I've answered in prior questions and answers. In relation to specific projects we've been very clear about the ones that we will be requiring the remaining funding to be going towards and this legislation and schedules deal with how exactly that will happen.In terms of the winding up of the scheme this legislation effectively requires from the time of Royal assent—we'll get to that debate later—that the funds are required to be spent on these particular projects and then on 30 June that is when the tax ends.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the member for his question which asked effectively why regional fuel taxes can't also be applied elsewhere. Our Government doesn't support regional fuel taxes. We're repealing the legislation as I've already told the committee and so we are repealing it through this legislation. In relation to other questions from members in the Labour Party regarding projects in their areas as we've outlined this bill prioritises the three particular projects listed and requires the remaining funds to go towards those and we're not supporting any of the other amendments that have been put forward. There were a number of questions from Tangi Utikere in terms of the disbursement. This is in relation to the funds that may be required for the council to pay this. The agency may request extra costs be recovered. Effectively that is to do with the funds being used in relation to the rebates and ensuring that there are funds available for those rebates. That's my understanding of the purpose of that particular provision and also to cover the cost of the scheme.In regards to clause 23 any incentive or disincentive to spend it the legislation doesn't make the spend time-bound because obviously some of those projects are going to take two to three years so there's going to be no time-bounds on them. Ultimately the council is motivated to complete them and at the completion of it once the funding is spent then of course it's spent.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to make clear—you made some observations about the nature of the debate. I think you mentioned in passing Speaker's ruling 125/8 noting that we are in urgency and there's no select committee which perhaps expands the scope of the debate because of course submitters haven't had a chance to express their views about how it affects them and impacts them particularly of course in Auckland. Also Speaker's ruling 124/5 which—although it mentions the nuts and bolts of a bill—also talks about whether the bill effectively implements the policy which it sets out to do. Obviously members are identifying facts on the ground in terms of how that fits with the policy of the bill. So I just wouldn't want members on this side of the Chamber to truncate their debate unnecessarily on the basis that you seem to say it should be a kind of technical—in other words working"—debate rather than how the bill actually implements the policies it's intended to do.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah look I understand the point that the member is making within the point of order and I think if there are specific things around a project that relate to what's happening in the bill then that's a fair question rather than we don't want to be up talking all night about projects that the Minister's clearly said he's not going to do other than things that relate to the bill around safety—we've heard of—and various other things which I think then the Minister would be required to at least listen to the question.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Speaking to the point of order. I do want to emphasise that this is a matter which Aucklanders are particularly concerned about and the voice of people coming to select committee which would be—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah OK. I get the point. I'm not ruling out people mentioning their projects; all I'm saying is can we home in when we're speaking about points that relate back to the bill. I'm not going to sit anyone down for mentioning a project; I just want to know how it relates to their question."
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. And I was going to bring the committee's attention to the Speaker's ruling at 79/4 about this interchange because it is something that aids in the debate. I have asked focused questions about the impact on consumers of this bill which seeks to lower their costs. The purpose of the bill is to provide cost of living relief for Aucklanders. So it is very relevant to the committee in the committee of the whole House stage to understand how these savings will be passed on to consumers.So to follow up my four questions of six which I have asked the Minister I haven't heard an answer to questions three and four. Question four which has not yet been addressed is: what information about price will be collected? The next question had that been answered that I would have asked is: given that information's being collected which agency is responsible for it? Is it the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA); is it the wholesale fuel distributors themselves who would have otherwise paid that levy? That's relevant because this committee needs to understand who within the system is responsible for ensuring that the information is collected so that the Minister can then be assured that consumers are enjoying the benefit of his bill.The Minister I heard before remarked that this is the same sort of regime as Labour's when it introduced its fuel tax savings. The difference here and what I'm trying to get to with these questions is that that was only ever a temporary cost of living relief. This bill introduces a permanent change to the regime and in fact removes all of the Government's taxing powers for cents per litre charge for fuel that can be used for local government transport projects that otherwise may not be fully funded. So the question here is how does this new regime which is a long-term regime ensure that consumers enjoy the benefits of this change? My final question for the Minister is what the impact of the wholesale fuel distributors not paying that tax to NZTA would be on Auckland Council. Because we have heard in a number of contributions in these questions specifically about the issue of whether an increase of rates will be used to fund these specific projects—that's not my question. I want to hear the Minister's explanation about the impact on borrowing for Auckland Council's books. Auckland Council is subject to a cap on the amount of money it can borrow. So because those wholesale fuel distributors will not be paying this tax to NZTA it would be useful for this committee to appreciate how that will impact on the borrowing levels of Auckland Council; whether the Minister has considered any alternatives like lifting the cap of Auckland Council's borrowing; or whether one of the ideas that the Minister discussed on the campaign trail of time user charges otherwise known as motorway tolls is something that he is considering to alleviate the pressure on Auckland Council's books.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the members for their questions. There has been a range of questions raised in regards to various projects and I note there's a number of tabled amendments as well and I note the honourable member who's just sat down has raised a tabled amendment in regard to a particular one. There is around $340 million of unspent regional fuel tax revenue.In discussions with the Mayor of Auckland the priority projects are those main ones which are the City Rail Link trains and stabling which is critically important around the City Rail Link; the Eastern Busway and Reeves Road flyover which is under construction; and local roading improvements. Those are the priorities that we both have agreed and that is what this legislation is putting in place.In relation to the honourable member Damien O'Connor who's just sat down he raises a tabled amendment where he seeks to change clause 7 which effectively revokes—Hon Damien O'Connor: To reinstate clause 8.Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yeah so he wants to reinstate clause 8 which is in relation to road safety which he's just articulated his reasons for that. I'm not sure if he's had a conversation with his colleague Camilla Belich because she has an identical tabled amendment where she doesn't want to reinstate the road safety one but wants to reinstate active transport instead. So there seems to be some inconsistency in terms of some of these tabled amendments coming through from the Opposition members. I note there's a range of other tabled amendments which seek to reinstate others. As we've outlined we have already identified the three projects that we are going to require the remaining funding to go towards. We've been very clear about that. This is legislating that. In terms of all of those tabled amendments we won't be supporting them.
Genter Julie Anne; Kuriger BarbaraHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to make some general comments about the bill and then some specific questions about this part. I guess one of the overall questions I have for the Minister is whether in repealing the regional fuel tax he asked for any advice on the relative compliance costs associated with collecting it as a revenue collection tool compared to other tools. I know the Government has indicated that they are interested in providing other funding tools to councils and specifically for transport projects tools like congestion pricing. But in the short term there's going to be a gap in revenue and then in order for projects that were on the books in Auckland to continue being funded with a share from the council it would have to come from some other source—probably rates or those projects simply won't go ahead. But given that fuel tax is already being collected and the mechanism was in place to collect the regional fuel tax did the Government give any consideration to the relative value of having something that is administratively simple and already in place to carry on with revenue so that infrastructure can carry on being funded until we have the congestion pricing or other mechanisms in place?Then my second question relates to in Part 1 clause 7 which talks about the amendments to the Schedule of the projects. What I'm particularly interested in is why the Minister decided to carry on allowing the funding that was sitting there had been collected from the Auckland regional fuel tax—why is he allowing that to be used on the Eastern Busway when the money from the regional fuel tax has come from car drivers and now it's being put to a public transport project. Why does he think it's OK in the instance of the Eastern Busway which is one of the few projects that was on the list of 14 projects to be funded? I'm really interested in the Minister's answer on this. Does he think it's fair for people who've been driving around Auckland paying regional fuel tax that that money be put towards a busway project and if so why is that?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I call the Hon Damien O'Connor I'm just going to say that this is under urgency with no select committee. Part 1 is the substantial part of this bill and we need to create an opportunity for some people who haven't asked questions yet.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you so much Madam Chair. The third question then is: what information about pricing will be collected and where will it be collected? Is this an expectation that the Minister has of the wholesale fuel distributors or is that information that will be collected by the New Zealand Transport Agency? The question here is about how the Minister intends to ensure that those cost savings are in fact passed on to consumers. I will ask the fourth question as well which is in relation to his answer about this benefiting all drivers. Has he had any advice about the impact of the regulation he's proposing given that it would seem that it would incentivise drivers to behave in different ways? It passes costs on from drivers who would be driving long distances to drivers who are simply registering the car every year but are not driving those long distances.
Williams Arena; Brown SimeonARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair this is a brand-new line of questions and I've taken some guidance from Speaker Tolley's ruling encouraging me and speakers like me to keep my contributions focused. So this will be a very focused set of six questions in which I am asking the Minister to engage with me in a series of questions and answers between members and Ministers following the changes in standing orders which came into effect in 2020 when Speaker Tolley made the ruling at 79/4 of the Speakers' rulings.The first question is: currently wholesale fuel distributors pay this portion of tax to NZTA who recover collection costs and then distribute the revenue to agencies responsible for the projects to be funded by the tax specifically Auckland Council. Now that the Minister is proposing these changes how will he make sure that the savings that the bill seeks to provide to Aucklanders are passed on to drivers who would otherwise have been paying 10c extra that would have been collected by wholesale fuel distributors?Just to give the Minister a minute to consider my question I will ask the second one which is: who will benefit from those savings the most? And that should be read in the context of replacing some of the costs that were raised by the Government from the Auckland fuel tax with the $50 fee increase in drivers' registrations of their vehicles.My question here is: have we got this right about who pays for the benefit that people are receiving? Is the benefit being passed on mostly to people who drive great distances and then borne by people who register their car every year? Are we in fact passing on costs that would otherwise not have been borne by people like my 90-year-old father who drives his car very little but needs to register it every year and subsidising those people like me who drive great distances because of their work and to get around Auckland? Those are the first two questions of six.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the member for the questions. In terms of the question around passing on costs there is a range of regulatory powers that MBIE have in terms of making sure that happens and it's very similar to what happened when the last Government reduced the fuel excise—those expectations remain. In terms of who will receive the benefits—people who drive their cars. There will be 10c plus the corresponding 1.5c a litre in GST that will be reduced from people's fuel bills; they'll benefit through this saving.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank members for their questions. There were a number of questions from Celia Wade-Brown in relation to speed bumps red-light cameras and consultation. I mean ultimately this bill focuses on the cost of living for New Zealanders and we are reducing the regional fuel tax to address that issue.In terms of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan she asked how we would replace the dollars. I mean ultimately for the rest of those projects which we are not continuing funding for of course Auckland Council is able to progress those. If they're on local roading corridors they are able to progress those. They just won't have regional fuel tax funding to support them and that's a conversation that the council can have with Auckland ratepayers.The issue in terms of what consultation was had with other organisations—I think that was Celia Wade-Brown again—ultimately New Zealanders voted for this Government and we are delivering on our campaign promises.Shanan Halbert asked about consultation with Auckland Council. I spoke to the mayor on a couple of occasions. These are projects that are of joint priority and so we are ensuring that the remaining funds of which there are over $300 million go towards those three priority projects.
Wade-Brown CeliaCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I don't think I can table my HOP card but I'd like to come close as somebody who has caught the bus and the train has cycled and has driven in Auckland over the last few months.Hon Simeon Brown: I've got mine too. There it is.CELIA WADE-BROWN: So just because I come from this area doesn't mean I don't—oh we can table another one. Jolly good!I've got a number of questions for the Minister about the projects in Auckland that will be cancelled because of the decision to remove the regional fuel tax. [Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a little bit of quiet on this side please.Hon Scott Simpson: Well we're just hearing moral high ground speeches. They get responses.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah but I'm struggling to hear the member. Interjections are fine but not so much condensed interjection all at once.CELIA WADE-BROWN: Thank you Madam Chair. First of all does the Minister believe that vehicles running red lights cause injuries to people driving cars passengers in cars people on bikes and people crossing roads? Following on from that does he believe that red-light cameras reduce the likelihood of drivers playing roulette through a red light? Thirdly do speeds in residential areas—do higher speeds—increase the severity of injuries and if so how does reducing speed humps address the health and safety of New Zealanders and Aucklanders in particular?The next question is: I believe this Government is bringing in congestion charging at some point; why not wait until the congestion charging is ready before removing the regional fuel tax? I accept that congestion charging may be a fairer way of doing it.Then finally what consultation on the projects that should be dropped was there with health ambulance Cycle Auckland Living Streets Aotearoa or any of the other knowledgeable organisations? Thank you Madam Chair.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Look thank you Madam Chair and I thank the members for their questions. Tangi Utikere he asked about the question of whether any thinking was done about reducing the rate or keeping the framework for the future. The answer to that was: we campaigned on removing the regional fuel tax and we were elected with a mandate to do that and this legislation is delivering on that mandate so we did not consider any other change other than to remove the legislation in its entirety—which is what this is doing.In regards to the question around different projects the Eastern Busway is under construction the City Rail Link trains are already under order and the priority for the Government is to improve our roading network. So those are the three priorities which have been identified for the remaining funding.In terms of the issue in regards to clause 5(b) it's a standard Parliamentary Counsel Office wording. It's there to enable renumbering should any other bill insert a new part into the transitional provision Schedule at around the same time as this bill. That is the answer to that specific question.
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonIn CommitteePart 1 Abolition of regional fuel taxCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 8 Abolition of regional fuel tax" and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. We are now in the committee stage of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. This bill has two parts. Part 1 deals with the purpose of the bill; the repeal of the statutory framework for establishing and operating the regional fuel tax; and it has some transitionary provisions in particular clauses 6 and 7 which amend the current Auckland regional fuel tax order and reduce the list of capital projects in which revenue from the regional fuel tax scheme can be sent from 14 to three.As has been raised in earlier debates on this bill it reduces the number of those particular capital projects down to the three that are being prioritised following discussions with the Mayor of Auckland which are the Eastern Busway and the Reeves Road Flyover the Auckland City Rail Link trains and stabling and local roading improvements."
Cheung CarlosDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I commend this bill to the House.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a privilege to rise as just another fabulous Aucklander to support the repeal of the Auckland regional fuel tax. The people of Northcote want a Government that will truly ease cost of living pressures; the people of Northcote want a Government that will actually end wasteful spending. This bill does both of these and therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Rutherford Tom; Pugh MaureenTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): It surely has. Thank you Madam Speaker. As the MP for Bay of Plenty anything we can do to support our colleagues across the country—and in this case in Auckland—with the cost of living I am happy to support. Removing the Auckland regional fuel tax will provide cost of living support saving the driver of a Toyota Hilux around $9.20 every time they fill up in Auckland while a Toyota Corolla driver will save around $5.75. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The next call is a split call. I call the Hon Damien O'Connor.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): One of the other important aspects of this bill is the removal of the opportunity for other regional fuel taxes. The people of Northland certainly do not want one. I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand here in support of this repeal bill for many reasons and just to name a couple: I feel like the good people of Tauranga are already living with two toll roads. Now there's three toll roads in New Zealand two of which are paid for in Tauranga and we are enjoying these very much. They're a user-pays situation in which—Tom Rutherford: Toll-ranga".CAMERON LUXTON: Tauranga!Tom Rutherford: "Toll-ranga".CAMERON LUXTON: Oh well Tauranga—I don't actually know how to pronounce it the way you did there. Oh "Toll-ranga"! Nice work "Tom-ranga".So what we have got is a user-pays system which works. I would love to see more people being able to access the central city. A lot of people from the Matapihi Pāpāmoa Arataki area already cycle over to the Strand and when that option's available people can take it. But for the vast majority of New Zealanders who choose to live where they want to live—and that might be in a suburb for their kids it might be close to a lifestyle opportunity like a beach—they need to be able to get to town. A regressive thing such as a regional fuel tax sets a precedent for the rest of the country that we do not want. I stand here glad to be repealing Auckland's fuel tax so that we don't end up with one in the Bay of Plenty. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise as an Aucklander to support the repeal of the Auckland regional fuel tax today. During the election campaign I door-knocked 80 percent of the streets in my community of Northcote—I actually door-knocked Camilla Belich's home. And the number one issue that came up time and time again—and I suspect she might be the Labour candidate for Northcote at the next election—was the cost of living and I'm really happy to support this because this bill addresses the cost of living of those in Northcote it addresses the cost of living of those in Pakuranga those in Takanini those in Mount Roskill those in Upper Harbour and I really support this bill. I commend this bill to the House and since it is a brief call I abide by the general principle: one who talks too much makes the most mistakes. So I commend this bill to the House.
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker. It gives me great pride to stand in support of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister of Transport Simeon Brown. This bill legislates that the remaining unspent revenue from the Auckland regional fuel tax is ring-fenced to fund the Eastern Busway electric trains stabilising for the City Rail Link and road-corridor improvements. Introducing legislation to remove this regional fuel tax was part of our 100-day action plan and unlike Governments previous this is actually a Government of delivery. We're delivering on what we campaigned on and I'm pleased to commend this bill to the House.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): At the last election we campaigned on reducing the cost of living for Aucklanders and one of the ways to do it was to remove this regional fuel tax. Guess what! They listened to us they voted for us and a number of the people on the other side of the House lost their seats. There's your message. I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. As we heard in question time from one of the honourable Ministers the blip of the last six years is over. This regressive tax which goes on everybody who fuels up their car no matter how they transport themselves around is going. What the regional fuel tax did not do was improve the efficiencies of the road. There was no accounting for time shifting or trying to make your workday fit around the use of the road so it wasn't improving congestion which is one of the bigger problems that the Auckland City motorists face.As I say this was a regressive tax and it ended up with an unspent $341 million. As the previous speaker Julie Anne Genter has mentioned one of those projects which will be saved is the Eastern Busway but the $341 million will also go on electric trains and stabling and road corridor improvements. So this money is being ring-fenced for these projects and is not to be spent on frivolous activities that end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars more than can be justified such as speed bumps. There are better ways of funding roads and we as a coalition Government are looking at tolling and electronic road-use charging along with city and regional infrastructure deals and time-of-use charging. This money which will be paid by road users will be spent on roads and as I mentioned those three projects are going to be finished.I will also just say that the rest of New Zealand will be able to sleep easy knowing that a regional fuel tax will not be coming to them thanks to this repeal bill. Thank you.
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Mr Speaker thank you very much. I thank the member the Hon Damien O'Connor for bringing up a part of my career as a director of Fonterra. Indeed he is correct that that organisation did bring in what I consider were some very challenging times for suppliers to that entity. You know I may enlighten people—without trying to sort of explain my whole CV—I was one of the contractors myself with an electrical contracting business that was in that spot. I as a director of Fonterra was part of the drive to get the change that we saw to correct that behaviour which stopped the hurt of so many different entities that were serving that very very big company which is called Fonterra. My point being that there are many businesses that are hurt by the fact that their working capital is stressed by the fact that other entities use them as banks.I'd like to say that there are—was it 3500 entities that were identified as part of this particular Act that's being repealed the Business Payment Practices Act? But it's actually more than those 3500 entities as well there are other businesses that actually cause a huge amount of stress on other companies as well. So this wasn't the silver bullet to solve the whole problem. But the fact is that the problem is agreed upon. Every member of the House—I haven't heard anybody talk cross-purposes of what the issue is; we agree with what the issue is. Dare I say it we've just got a different method of actually delivering a solution for this on this side of the House. So with that I commend the bill to the House.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I'd like to address the member on the Opposition Reuben Davidson that we speak one language in this country which is for the betterment of New Zealand. So if I can bring everyone in this House back to the intention of this bill which is to improve payment times ramping up the use of e-invoicing; incentivising small and medium enterprises to adopt e-invoicing; expanding payment targets to Crown entities—all of these will contribute to business efficiency. So faster payment between and across businesses in New Zealand is the intention that we have for this bill and with great intention it comes with great delivery and the speed of delivery for this National-led Government. So with this I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Now I understand this is a split call between two Labour members. Ingrid Leary—five minutes.
Wedd Catherine; O'Connor GregCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Well I'd just like to support the third reading of this bill and I'd like to just pick up on a word that a member on the other side of the House used—optimism—because optimism is what we are going to be pumping back into our economy and into small business because we believe in less regulation less red tape and less compliance. I think in this debate today we've all noted that we all want businesses to pay on time but we don't achieve it through more regulation and more red tape. There's no point creating rules for the sake of creating rules. It's about making it easier for business to do business so we can create more jobs and opportunity and get this economy back on track. So I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a split call. Five minutes—Reuben Davidson.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well can I bring us back to reality. We heard from the excellent Minister—clearly the others weren't listening—that he is going to address all of these issues through regulation. I thought it was going to be in the Bayly Bill" but it's not; it's going to be via regulation. And what's more it'll be a much more efficient and cost-effective way. He is actually doing this to save businesses who had ahead of them if this Act wasn't repealed quite a significant cost to upgrade their own systems to meet the requirements of that Act and also $2 million to $3 million at least of cost to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to develop and put in place a computer system to actually deal with it. So we're about making things easier for business—small business in particular. This repeal bill is the start of that and I commend it with great pride to the House."
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to commend this bill to the House. We are a party of common sense and we see that supporting this bill is common sense. As the financial year comes to a close businesses need some certainty and these businesses who are now feeling a little bit concerned about the additional compliance costs will now have certainty that that will not happen. Also we will be saving money with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and that is just a fact of what this Government has to do. We have to look at how we can save money. There is no easy way to say that. So that is why I commend this bill to the House.
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm absolutely honoured to stand here in support of this and actually as a small-business owner I think we might have a bit of consultation actually on this side of the House. Actually represented across—there are a quite a few members that have owned a small business or worked as a small business. Now the reason that this is under urgency—there are a couple of reasons but the main one is that 3000-plus businesses would have to upgrade their technology and then the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment would have to spend an enormous amount of money to get the system up and ready to go. So I understand that need for urgency and we need to move quickly on this.There are better ways that we can encourage big business to pay than this. I 100 percent acknowledge as a small-business owner it's really hard when you're not getting paid by the bigger clients and you need that incoming cash flow but the previous Government's bill would not have actually achieved that. We only have to look to Australia to see the results of their inquiry after the 2020 bill that went in there to see that it's actually not the right way about this.There are already actually protections under the Fair Trading Act the Construction Contracts Act and the Contract and Commercial Law Act to protect small businesses. So there actually are some provisions in place already and I do believe that this Government has some good solutions going forward so that we can actually get some real progress for small businesses. I commend this bill to the House.
Member Vacancy — Green Party List—Fa'anānā Efeso Collins
Brownlee GerryMEMBER VACANCYGreen Party List—Fa'anānā Efeso CollinsSPEAKER: The House has resumed. Members I wish to advise the House that following the death of Faʻanānā Efeso Collins I have given notice that the list seat in the House becomes vacant.
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I move That debate on this question now close.
Andersen Ginny; White HelenHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair and thank you to the Minister for that clarification. What I'm interested to know from the Minister about the repeal process is this. I'm aware that a lot of communication was undertaken with small businesses and with industry as well in terms of how to get this bill right and I would like some reassurance from the Minister. On the 28th day after the date in which it comes into force when it is repealed is there a sufficient plan in place so that all of those entities that may have undertaken some form of work and that may have changed their database and their pay systems and may have gone in to undertaking some sort of changes to how they make their payment so that it's self-reporting and potentially undergone some expense to do that work—are there sufficient notifications and communications in place? We know that not everybody tunes in to watch Parliament so they might not all be watching this right now. So what reassurances can he provide the business community that there is a plan in place where all of those who are affected by this legislation being repealed are informed in enough time to be able to make those quite potentially technical IT changes to their systems to make sure that they're not incurring costs unnecessarily? The other point I would like to make and I acknowledge—I still have not heard the access to finance. That's the big elephant in the room that hasn't been addressed. Access to finance for small businesses under a cost of living crisis—that question has still not been addressed. I think that if you're going to repeal this Act then it is incumbent upon this Government to address the question of what the plan is for access to finance for small businesses going forward in New Zealand. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Point of order. I just want to seek clarification. The Minister has started to talk about issues which are really about clause 2 and the amendment there where it is proposed to have a trial period and not repeal. I don't want to lose my opportunity so my understanding is that this particular part of the debate is about the repeal of the repeal bill not the extension of time that might be present and I just want to make sure that I've got the agreement of the Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes the member is correct. HELEN WHITE: Thank you.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I move That debate on this question now close.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. The Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing has mentioned his opening speech several times and there are a number of issues from that speech that I think we will want to discuss during this stage of the bill and in particular the seven or so steps he proposes we should be taking. But I want to talk about something else the Minister said in his opening speech which suggests that we do have the space to go through each of those options and have a thorough discussion of them.He described the process for the original Business Payment Practices Bill and he said—and this is almost exactly the right words; I couldn't find the actual written transcript the Hansard but I did listen to the speech twice—that that bill was ram-roaded through the select committee. That's pretty much an exact quote—ram-roaded through select committee. So I went and looked at the select committee process for the original bill. It was referred to the select committee on 8 November 2022. It was reported back on 26 April 2023 so it spent 169 days at select committee and reading the select committee report we can see a number of amendments and changes that were made in order to make the particular model work better because obviously that's what select committees do. There is the National Party's minority view in there of course. Then there's the committee membership so you can see the people who participated in the discussion including Andrew Bayly who is now the Minister. So it was quite an extensive process which was responsive to what other people suggested with respect to that bill. Yet the Minister has described it as being ram-roaded through select committee.Here we are in urgency and this particular bill is being rushed through—a first reading a second reading the committee of the whole House stage and a third reading—bang bang bang—following after each other. I suppose there are two thoughts here. One says we are entitled to a very generous committee stage on this bill. The Minister has mentioned in his opening speech seven other measures that he wants to take and I would like to examine those in the committee of the whole House. I think we've got plenty of time—I hope—available to discuss that but more importantly the Minister has described a process of 169 days as being ram-roading a bill through select committee. Yet here we are in urgency debating this amendment bill—bang bang bang bang.So I just wonder if the Minister could contrast the two processes—given that we don't have the luxury because we haven't been afforded it of discussing his bill fully at select committee—and tell us how he feels that this discussion should go. In particular I would like to note for the benefit of the committee those seven measures. I am going to ask the Minister to go through them at various stages because he has talked about them already in his speeches and I think he has opened up discussion on them. So if you could Minister just tell us a little bit about what the difference is between ram-roading something—it was 169 days—and this urgency process.