Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10353. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think there is a need to focus heavily on this part Part 1 of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. I think it is fair to say that it will be important to focus even more heavily on the next part of the bill because that is the grubby bit where the Government gives even more money that it is taking off hard-working hard-taxed New Zealanders back to its mates. That is in the next part and I will get on to that after we have had the division on this one.But I cannot go any further talking about this part of the bill without absolutely refuting the comments made by way of interjection by the person who purports to represent the Wairarapa electorate John Hayes. I am stimulated by that comment to go to Dannevirke on Monday and tell the people that he thinks that $45 extra tax for the average person the average motorist in the Wairarapa is nothing—that to the average motorist in Wairarapa it is nothing.John Hayes: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not make any of these comments at all.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Speaking to the point of order—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! I think we could just calm it down a little bit. The reality is that whatever Mr Mallard says is a debatable issue anyway. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Member: Stick to the part.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Stick to the part.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Forty-five dollars in the first year $90 in the second year and $135 in the third year and the member who represents one of the biggest rural electorates says that is nothing. He says that is nothing. That is John Hayes.Why does he say it? Because his fuel is paid for—his fuel is paid for. His constituents are not paid for their fuel. It comes out of their income—it comes out of their tax-paid income. It is an outrage—it is an outrage—that the 3c plus GST the 6c plus GST and the 9c plus GST that is to be paid by his constituents he regards as nothing. That is just nonsense. I am going to spend some time in Dannevirke on Monday. I will go to Dannevirke and I will talk to the people in Dannevirke about how their local member says that charging them an extra $45 nearly $1 a week—nearly $1 a week—John Hayes: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I must insist that you ask that speaker to withdraw those comments. I have not made them.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No there is no need for a point of order. This is a debatable issue and the member has put onHansard where he stands.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point that I wish to raise with you is that these are indeed debatable points and it is open to any member to take a call and elaborate if they think—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.Chris Hipkins: You have not heard my point of order yet Mr Chair. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! There is a point of order on the floor. Silence.Chris Hipkins: The point that I am raising is that Mr Hayes has interrupted Mr Mallard twice in order to make points that he could make in a debate. You as the Chair making a judgment on how long this debate will go for have to weigh up as one of your considerations contributions from both sides. I want an assurance from you that you will regard Mr Hayes’ contributions as being contributions to the debate. The National members are contributing by way of points of order even if they are not taking a call.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No that is not classified—no.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: John Hayes indicated that he thought that these increases were nothing or not much or something like that. [Interruption] “Not much”—I apologise. It was not “nothing”; it was “not much”. Well it might be not much to someone whose travel costs are paid who runs up and down with his massive Volvo and the taxpayer pays for him. The taxpayer pays for him but most of the people who run around Dannevirke Eketāhuna Tīnui Masterton Featherston Pahīatua—it does not go to Wairoa—and Waipukurau all those people who pay for their petrol know that it is significant paying an extra $1 a week per car in their family. And they have got to have a car. Many of them because of the very poor public transport have to have more than one car. It cannot and should not be described as “not much”—it should not be described as that.Getting back to the detail in this particular amendment what this allows for is an increase in the first year of 5.9 percent. But the 5.9 percent does not include the GST. Is this honesty? Is this honesty in a regulatory impact statement? Is this honesty in a regulatory impact statement? To be fair to the Government because of its massiveupward track in percentage terms in the impact it is only 5.3 percent in the third year but that is as we have heard over a 10 percent increase over the period of time.But I will go back to a point that I think needs to be focused on by the Committee. That is—and I do not want to sound like Sir Geoffrey Palmer but still—we are the fastest lawmakers in the West. We have only —