Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in this second reading. Normally I suppose in the second reading we have a look at the select committee stage and think about what was said via the public in submissions. Of course because we are under urgency we don't have the ability to do that. I think as quite rightly my learned colleague Simeon Brown has pointed out it's taken the Minister and this Government so long to bring this bill to the House you would argue why there couldn't have been a truncated select committee in some form to get some feedback and to test exactly the drafting of this legislation and whether it's actually going to deliver what the Minister and the Government proposes it will deliver.One thing I would say is New Zealanders have a great sense of fairness but what they don't want is a Government that they feel has switched off is not listening and is arrogant. And I think when you look at that poll which triggered this action it actually said hard-working Kiwis were saying We don't like watching the Government on TV refuting a cost of living crisis." That's what that poll said. So I think it is fairly arrogant for Government members to get up in the first reading and now the second reading time after time sheeting the cost of living crisis home to international drivers.It's very clear domestic inflation is outpacing international inflation. Rents have skyrocketed housing you only need to go to the supermarket. There's a range of factors—and also the thief in the night which of course is inflation—which directly link to this Government throwing money out there into the economy. So I think it's fair for Kiwis to hear from the Government members tonight to actually acknowledge their role in the cost of living crisis which has led us here to tonight.What I want to focus on for the first part of my speech is the acknowledgment that the fiscal envelope of this initiative will be about $350 million and I think if I'm right that includes the cut in the excise tax as well as this road-user charges. Now if I look at the press release (PR) that I presume was put out by the Minister "This means we can continue the Government's record investment into transport infrastructure without having to cut projects." Really? When you go around regional New Zealand and see roading projects that were cut when this Government came into office they have the nerve to now say in their PR "without having to cut projects." Really? So what about say the Woodend Bypass in my electorate? Announced in 2017 as the next road of national significance; this Government came in and cut it.So one thing we could have got clarity on in the select committee stage is when it says "This means we can continue the Government's record investment into transport infrastructure without having to cut projects." does that mean roads specifically? What projects are they referring to? And are we going to have a cast-iron guarantee we're not going to be told later down the track that because of this $350 million vital roading projects won't continue? Because what's really concerning is when you look at many mainlanders or South Islanders that pay their hard-earned money into road-user charges and then watch this Government gerrymander the Land Transport Fund and their hard-working road-user charges are funnelled off to pet projects in Auckland nothing winds mainlanders up more. So we are expecting a commitment tonight that projects will be committed to and proceed as well.The next point I want to raise: clause 42E and this could have been interrogated more in the select committee stage. How assessments are to be calculated—got the old formula A minus B times C minus D equals E. Fair to say that level of mathematics was not probably my strength although it was a very good school and the Hon Damien O'Connor I'm sure would agree with me on that. But what it says under B is the distance covered by RUC licences that the RUC collector considers would have been reasonable to purchase for the RUC vehicle during the temporary reduction period. I suppose we can look at that in the committee of the whole House stage but it would have been good to interrogate that more in the select committee stage. What does it mean when it says "reasonable to purchase"? I think we don't have much detail around that because it's not actually in the formula. And what will be the criteria that our RUC collectors—this role RUC monitors; more bureaucrats by the sounds of it—will be assessing what was reasonable to order.Kieran McAnulty: Point of order Madam Speaker. There's a couple of areas of concern here. This is a second reading and so far in the six minutes of this speech we've had debate on a press release which is not contained in the bill and we all know that in the second reading we must debate what is in the bill as it is written. And the second part is now we've had two minutes of talking about what should be in the committee stage and Speakers' rulings are very clear that while members can indicate a question that they intend to ask they must not debate it in the second reading.MATT DOOCEY: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you Madam Speaker I'm sure you're aware that I'm actually speaking directly to the clauses of the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I do invite the member to come back to the bill and contain your comments to the second reading. We are going to go into the committee stage pretty soon and you can actually ask your questions then.MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much Madam Speaker. So with that clause 42E now we will have to think about how we do interrogate that.The next point I want to raise is the Minister's reference in the speech for the second reading about the backdating—or what we're calling an "overlap licence"—and I'll take his word for it that's in existing legislation. But what I am surprised at—and of course that could have been teased out at the select committee stage as well—is I'm not sure it's actually referenced in this bill. It's not exactly pointed to. So it would be interesting to understand why it's not in the bill and I suppose it does pose some questions for us around the administration of that the cost of that and the difference between heavy and light vehicles as well.So in the second reading I've hopefully outlined I think what would have been some of the concerns that would have come out of the select committee stage. It's fair to say we are in support of this bill at a time of a cost of living crisis. It's important that many New Zealanders get to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible. But also I suppose part of our role as parliamentarians is to ask those pesky questions. And I suppose it is important because it wouldn't be the first time the Government's brought things in and then of course had to do their own Supplementary Order Papers at the committee of the whole House stage but actually had to bring legislation back in the House for further work.So I think it is important that we ask the pesky questions and ensure ultimately what we have here in the sense of the draft legislation and the words in this bill that it actually delivers on what the intent is: to ensure that hard-working Kiwis get to keep a bit of their hard-earned cash. But also expect that this Government will deliver on vital transport and roading infrastructures that we need. And we know in the South Island there's plenty of projects that have been cancelled and I look forward to them getting under way. Thank you Madam Speaker."