Tuesday, 5 March 2024 (continued on Wednesday, 6 March 2024) - Volume 774 Sitting date: 5 Mar 2024 TUESDAY, 5 MARCH 2024 (continued on 6 March 2024) … MEMBER VACANCY Green Party, List—Fa'anānā Efeso Collins SPEAKER: 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. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Foreign Affairs 1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) on behalf of Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he agree with Associate Professor of Law Treasa Dunworth, who said about the International Court of Justice ruling in the case against Israel under the Genocide Convention that New Zealand "has a legal obligation to do what it can to ensure that Israel complies with the court's orders"; if so, what action is the Government taking to fulfil its legal obligation? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): It's important to make clear that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not made any determination of genocide in this case and, indeed, has not released any final ruling on the matter. What has happened so far is that the ICJ has released a provisional ruling and has taken the substantive issues under advisement. That said, of course, all countries have a general obligation to prevent and punish genocide. New Zealand has consistently called on Israel to comply with the binding interim measures, that is, take all reasonable steps not to commit genocide, as issued by the International Court on 26 January 2024. Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 394(2), which says that a member may ask a question on behalf of another member who is absent. But the member in whose name the question is has just emerged and is now present in the Chamber, and I just wonder if it's possible for another member to keep asking the question when that member is here? SPEAKER: That's a very good point, absolutely right. The member in whose name the question was, was not present when the question was called. We're now into supplementary questions and as the member knows, any member from the House can ask supplementary questions. So the point is right; circumstances have changed. Hon David Seymour: What about the first supplementary, shouldn't that go to the member? SPEAKER: No, no, are you calling that, or—I can't hear you from here. Hon James Shaw: Will he unequivocally condemn Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 10 children so far by starvation? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: New Zealand is meeting its obligations under the genocide convention, including by clearly and consistently stating its position publicly. Since the start of the conflict, New Zealand has consistently called on all parties to comply with international law in national statements and in statements alongside Australia. Since the ICJ provisional ruling, I have engaged with representatives of around 50 countries, and developments in Gaza have been a regular topic of discussion and none of those 50 countries are left in any doubt as to what New Zealand's position is. For the member's benefit, New Zealand has been clear from the outset that the protection of civilians is paramount. The price of defeating Hamas cannot be continued at the suffering of Palestinian people. Hon James Shaw: Will the Government intervene as a third party in the case against Israel under the genocide convention, now that Israel has failed to comply with the court orders including by obstructing basic aid into Gaza and deliberately opening fire on civilians who are seeking aid? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is what happens when one goes to academia for an expert opinion, and academia has never been in a court of law. That is not what the ICJ ruled, and that's still in abeyance in terms of the final decision, as we speak. Teanau Tuiono: Will he guarantee the continuation of New Zealand's annual funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) as the main provider of humanitarian aid in Gaza? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to thank that member for that question. The reality is that, as the previous Government had said, the next tranche is not due until the middle of this year, which gives us time to observe the full-scale inquiry be conducted by the United Nations at this point in time. But that said, we have gone and supported other agencies doing the same kind of work, bearing in mind that UNRWA is a serious component and to operate it properly is essential because there's no other possible replacement right here right now for that organisation. Teanau Tuiono: Does he think it is appropriate for the Government to continue diplomatic relations with Israel, including hosting the Israeli ambassador, while Israel fails to abide by its obligations under the ICJ decision and international humanitarian law? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, when the ICJ brings out a ruling, I suggest people read it carefully and maybe take legal advice as to what it means. Because the inference in that question is that the findings were not as the international community has recognised them where Israel is concerned. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he consider introducing an Israel sanctions bill to Parliament to send a clear message that Aotearoa will not tolerate war crimes and genocide, just as we did in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to that question, a previous Labour Government looked at that as an overall political change in our law and decided against it; and all of a sudden that has changed now. Those matters are under consideration, but at this point in time, this Government has made no such decision. Question No. 2—Climate Change 2. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Climate Change: Has he sought or received advice on the transport-related emission reduction impacts of the draft Government Policy Statement on land transport; if not, why not? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Matters relating to climate change and emissions reduction issues are being worked through and addressed during the development of the second Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP). This will include deciding the cross-sector policy mix to ensure emissions budgets are met. As such, while I have received advice, I haven't received specific advice on transport-related emissions reduction impacts of that draft Government policy statement (GPS), as this will be part of preparing ERP 2. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will the cutting of funding for measures in his Government's draft GPS that were recommended by the climate commission as being required to meet the first emissions reduction target, such as substantially increasing the share of central government funding dedicated to active and public transport infrastructure and reducing public transport fares to encourage greater use of public transport, put meeting—[Interruption] SPEAKER: I'll tell you what we're going to do—sorry to interrupt the member, but questions are heard in silence. If people want to have conversations, go out to the lobbies. Please start the question again. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you. Will the cutting of funding for measures in his Government's draft GPS that were recommended by the climate commission as being required to meet the first emissions reduction target, such as substantially increasing the share of central government funding dedicated to active and public transport infrastructure and reducing public transport fares to encourage greater use of public transport, put meeting Emissions Budget 1 in jeopardy? Hon SIMON WATTS: Look, I have advice that the estimated impact of removing some of the initiatives which this Government coalition government have signalled will have an inconsequential impact in regards to the impacts around those budgets. Hon Dr Megan Woods: What advice has he received on the impacts of the measures in the GPS given the answer to that supplementary question? Hon SIMON WATTS: As I've advised to the Minister, there is a range of advice that I have received, but I have not received specific advice in regards to the emissions reduction impacts in that draft GPS. That will be part of the emissions reduction 2 process, of which I will welcome the Minister's input into that process, and we start consultation in May. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister of Climate Change think he should have asked for advice on what the impacts are of removing measures that were recommended by the climate commission for meeting Emissions Budget 1? [Interruption] SPEAKER: Hang on a minute, we've got to get this right. When people are asking a question, if you don't like the question, just suck it up and listen. Please ask the question again. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you. Does the Minister of Climate Change think he should have asked for advice on what the specific impacts of cuts through the GPS on transport would be, and their potential of not meeting Emissions Budget 1? Hon SIMON WATTS: I appreciate that the former Minister may not have been particularly listening to my answer to the question, but as I have stated, and I will state again for the purposes of repetition, that aspect of that process will form part of the ERP 2 process. While I have received advice, I haven't received specific advice that the Minister had asked in her primary question. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question of the member about whether or not he thought he should have asked for that specific advice. He has told us in several of his answers that he hasn't received specific advice, but I asked him if he thought he should. SPEAKER: Yeah, look. Lots of these points of order relating to that sort of thing in recent days—I've done quite a bit of reading to find out what other Speakers have said in the past. The question was addressed, and I think we will now move on. Hon Chris Bishop: Has the Minister received advice on the $30 billion Lake Onslow scheme and how much money was spent by the previous Government developing the scheme? SPEAKER: The primary question relates to transport-related emission reduction. Lake Onslow, as you know, is a proposed electricity scheme. Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister received any advice on the doomed light-rail project and how much was wasted on that before it was cancelled? SPEAKER: If we're going to go down this track, we're going to get into a pretty murky place. The primary— Hon Member: It's transport. SPEAKER: Well, OK, I'll get called on that; it is a transport-related question. It's very thin. It's quite— Hon SIMON WATTS: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I didn't hear that question. Could the Minister repeat that— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply refer you to the Standing Order that you quoted to me yesterday. The question that Nicola Willis asked falls foul of that Standing Order and, therefore, must be ruled out of order on the same basis that you pulled me up yesterday. SPEAKER: Well, I pulled you up yesterday on the basis— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I help out here? SPEAKER: No. No. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can really help out here. SPEAKER: Well, it had better be helpful. Rt Hon Winston Peters: It's a matter of chronology. This issue was decided when this Government came into office. Therefore, it's in our bailiwick. Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: That is a fair point. I'll just make the point that I pulled you up yesterday— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Hang on. I pulled you up yesterday on the skilfully put question that essentially asked for an opinion on your opinion, and that is the subtle difference that we've got here. This is on a specific matter. Hon James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think part of the issue here, actually, is that Minister of Climate Change is not responsible for the Auckland light-rail project or for the financial matters relating to that. The primary question was around emissions budgets, not fiscal budgets, and so, therefore, the supplementary question about the fiscal cost of the light-rail project is not relevant to the primary question. SPEAKER: That is a reasonable point. I'll accept that. Are you speaking to this point of order? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It's a further point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Well, hang on. Let me deal with this one. Is that all right? Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All right, then. Fair enough. Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in response to the former climate Minister's— SPEAKER: No, it's not your job to respond to him. If you've got something new to add, tell me. Simon Court: Well, it's quite clear that Auckland light rail was proposed to reduce emissions but not to reach net zero until 2060. SPEAKER: With all due respect, the only one who's going to judge about the suitability of a question here today is me, so I'm ruling it out, and we'll move on from here. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Order that I was referring to was 390(1)(b), which you quoted yesterday in suggesting that my question was out of order. In fact, Nicola Willis' question falls foul of the same rule. SPEAKER: Well, OK, but my point yesterday was that 390(1)(b) does not allow opinion, and that's the difference. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: And her question did? SPEAKER: No, her question was specific, but that question's now ruled out, so it's no longer a problem for you. Dan Bidois: Can the Minister confirm that electric vehicles need roads to drive on? SPEAKER: No. No. No. Don't do that sort of thing. That's not going to help. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary question. SPEAKER: When we're all quiet—when we're all quiet. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How much more will Kiwis be paying per litre at the pump as a consequence of his Government's policy of relying almost solely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS) pricing scheme to achieve transport emissions reductions to align with the Climate Commission's projections that economic modelling has shown needs a carbon price of $235 per tonne by 2030? SPEAKER: The problem is here, if I let that question through, I'd be disagreeing with the position taken by the Hon James Shaw, which I did agree with. So it's either a question about emissions or it is a fiscal question. That was a fiscal question. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Climate Change has ministerial responsibility for the ETS scheme, and that was a question about the emissions trading scheme and what the price would need to be. SPEAKER: All right. Fair enough. I'm sure he can answer it. Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As Minister of Climate Change, I don't comment on the price of the ETS nor in regards to what it does, but what I can say to the former Minister is the way in which this Government will take actions around the reduction of emissions will be different from the prior Government, and we'll be working through the emissions reduction plan 2, which I welcome the former Minister's input into in order to make sure we've got a credible plan to deliver those targets. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he think it is fair that Kiwis will be hit with a petrol-price hike of between 40 and 50 cents a litre, based on that carbon price of $235 a tonne, because of his Government's plan of cutting transport projects and programmes that will reduce emissions? Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can say is unfair to New Zealanders is the fact that this coalition Government has inherited a situation where there isn't a clear pathway in order to meet some of our reductions, because of the inaction by the prior Government and that former Minister. We are going to address that issue through the progress we do around the emissions reduction 2 programme, and I look forward to being able to tell you more about that in due course. Question No. 3—Finance 3. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Finance: How much will the Government spend this year on financing its debt? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In the current financial year, Treasury is forecasting that the cost of financing Government debt—which is almost entirely interest payments—will be $8.8 billion, and according to forecasts in the half-year update, which assume the previous Government policies are continued, this is expected to rise to $9.7 billion in the next financial year, and $10.4 billion in the year after that. Suze Redmayne: How have the Government's finance costs changed over time? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Finance costs are expected to be $8.8 billion this year. By comparison, finance costs in 2017-18 were $3.5 billion, so they have more than doubled, or grown more than 150 percent, since that time. In fact, yes— Hon Grant Robertson: Was the interest rate the same? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member opposite is concerned that interest rates are very high after six years of his economic mismanagement. Now, finance costs were relatively moderate even two years ago, but have skyrocketed since then because of higher interest rates and greater debt issuance. Hon David Seymour: So can the Minister of Finance confirm that— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn't a question word that he started with. SPEAKER: Well, I know that you're a Doctor of Law; I didn't know grammar was one of your strong points. However, I'm sure he'll have another go. Hon David Seymour: Maybe they should have a "Grammar" in Christchurch. To the Minister— SPEAKER: No, no. Hang on—I did pick up people yesterday. No comments before you ask a question. Just ask the question. Hon David Seymour: Oh, fair enough. To the Minister of Finance, can she confirm what she is saying is that pretty soon, on the fiscal track we've inherited, the Government will be paying $10 billion a year, $200-plus per citizen, or $1,000 a year for a family of five just on the interest on the debt these guys left? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Minister makes real an issue that the last Government left to us, and to further his analysis, I would put it this way: the finance costs alone of meeting our debt this year will equate to $1,666 for every person in New Zealand. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Giving it a geographic inflection, does that mean, for example, that Otago University will be paying $10 million a year just to pay off the interest on their debt? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I don't take responsibility— SPEAKER: No. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —for the finances of— SPEAKER: And no further comment. If you've got a—[Interruption] Look, sometimes those questions might appear to be fun, but they're not helpful and they're not in order. Suze Redmayne: How do finance costs compare with other areas of Government spending? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: At $8.8 billion, finance costs are forecast to be higher this year than spending on primary and secondary schools combined, or, putting it another way, finance costs are forecast to be higher this year than Government spending on the Defence Force, the police, Corrections, and Customs combined. In fact, they are around $1 billion higher than that—$1 billion higher than spending on the Defence Force, the Police, Corrections, and Customs combined. Suze Redmayne: How much are the Government's finance costs per New Zealander? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Finance costs of $8.8 billion this year equate to $1,666 for every person in New Zealand. Government debt in New Zealand is too high, thanks to the financial mismanagement of the previous Government. Hon Grant Robertson: What percentage of GDP is the cost of borrowing at the moment, and how does this compare with the past? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The cost of borrowing at the moment relates to the official cash rate as it sits very high, at 5.5 percent, and the cost of servicing our debt as a proportion of GDP has risen to 43 percent by the old measure we used to measure debt before that member changed the measure to make it look lower. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to give the member the benefit of the doubt. That wasn't the question I asked. The question I asked was what the cost of borrowing, the subject of this question—what that is as a percentage of GDP, and not New Zealand's overall debt, which is what she answered about. So I'll offer her the chance to answer now, rather than have to come back and correct. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, is that a supplementary question or is it a point of order, or something in between? SPEAKER: No, it was—you started speaking before I got a chance to comment, but it is a reasonable clarification of the answer. I just want to make it very clear that points of order are not methods to be able to ask the question again, but there was a seeking of clarification, and I accept that the answer probably missed the percentage of GDP point. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as a proportion of GDP, those finance costs are high. Question No. 4—Transport 4. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes, I stand by all my statements and actions, particularly when I said that investments in the draft Government policy statement (GPS) 2024 will ensure key connections are provided so that Kiwis can get to where they need to go quickly and safely. These investments will also reduce congestion on our roads, provide low-emission transport options in our main cities, and create a more productive and resilient transport network, driving economic growth and unlocking land for thousands of new houses. Tangi Utikere: When he said yesterday, "but the reality is—the reality is—that we need to ensure that we set out the funding parameters to be able to deliver the infrastructure New Zealanders need", how can New Zealanders have any confidence that he won't be introducing other taxes, fees, or levies to cover the fiscal holes that his transport plan clearly has? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Because the reality is—the reality is—that the GPS outlines exactly how we're going to fund—I think it's on page 27, for the member's benefit, or 29; I can't quite remember right now—the projects and the outcomes in our draft GPS document. Tangi Utikere: Who is correct, National MP— SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on. Just wait. Your own colleagues are sort of a bit animated at the moment. Tangi Utikere: It's great support. Who is correct, National MP Simeon Brown, who said, "National's fully-costed transport plan will deliver 13 new Roads of National Significance and four major public transport projects – and does not require increases to petrol tax.", or the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), who estimate that there is a fiscal hole in his transport plan of up to $24.4 billion, or 110 percent more than he had originally estimated? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, Simeon Brown is correct, because this GPS is not increasing fuel excise duty and road-user charges in the three years of this Government's term. Tangi Utikere: How can the Government deliver reliable, effective, and efficient public transport as a priority for Kiwi households when it intends to scrap free and half-price fares for under-25s, and when its draft GPS takes over $1.5 billion from public transport, which also cuts the ability of local councils to provide additional transport fare subsidies? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if the member read the draft GPS document, it outlines the fact that under the last Government, farebox recovery fell from 40 percent of running public transport services to 13 percent, and so the reality is that we need to ensure that people who use public transport are helping support it. But I'd also point out to the members opposite, they had six years in Government, they spent $228 million on "Auckland light fail" and failed to deliver it. We started the City Rail Link and we're going to complete it. We have a proud track record on public transport. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No one believes that. Tangi Utikere: What is the total value— SPEAKER: Hang on. Even an affirmation of someone's question is a breach of the convention that the question gets asked with the House listening in silence. Tangi Utikere: What is the total value of the proposed roads of national significance in the South Island compared with the overall value of all 15 roads of national significance, and what does that level of investment say to mainlanders about the importance this Government places on South Island projects? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there's a range of estimates around the projects. But what I'd point out is there are a number of key projects in the South Island that we'll be prioritising: the Woodend Bypass advocated by the member Matt Doocey, the Ashburton bridge, the Hope Bypass, and better road maintenance. That last Government cancelled, cancelled, cancelled, cancelled. We're going to deliver. Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that question was very specific. It—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence, so don't interfere or don't make a noise when people are making them. Tangi Utikere: Mr Speaker, that question was very specific about the value rather than the numbers, and I suggest to you that the Minister has not addressed the specific point in the question. SPEAKER: I think the Minister more than addressed the question. He talked about the proposals. If the Minister wants to add a link he can, but I think the question was addressed. Hon Scott Simpson: What feedback has he received on the draft Government Policy Statement on land transport? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I've received a range of correspondence over the past few days since we released the draft GPS. Let me read two of them: "Dear Simeon, congratulations on your excellent draft GPS." And another one: "Well done. New Zealand needs these 15 roads of national significance ASAP." [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait. Are we ready? Tangi Utikere: What advice has he received regarding plans to scrap up to $20 million of funding for coastal shipping, and what impact would this have on New Zealand's resilience against major events such as the Kaikōura earthquake? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop says, it is the National Land Transport Fund. Last time I saw, our ships run on water, and cars and trucks run on the land. This is about the land, not the sea. We're not continuing the coastal fund under the last Government. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just hang on. OK. Rachel Boyack: [Holds up newspaper] Can the Minister confirm that constituents in my electorate of Nelson will be paying more with a 22 cent fuel tax hike and a $50 jump in vehicle registration fees but getting less after the Nelson Mail reported this morning that he's dropped one of our two major transport projects from the Government Policy Statement on transport? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the good news for the good people of Nelson and Tasman is that they will be getting the Hope Bypass under this GPS. I encourage the regional land transport plan to put forward its proposals, and the national land transport programme will be developed by the NZTA over the coming six months. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think that the confusion behind that penultimate question relates to the fact that Waka Kotahi is actually a boat on the road, and while the potholes were building up in their tens of thousands of kilometres, they went ahead with that sort of behaviour? SPEAKER: That's a—no. We'll move now to question No. 5. Question No. 5—Prime Minister 5. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's policies and statements? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, within the context in which they were delivered, and, unlike some, we won't be double-crossing that bridge when we come to it. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How is it appropriate for this Government to put a Minister in charge of the Ka Ora, Ka Ako free school lunch programme who described it as "wasteful", "unaffordable", and a "marketing stunt" while in Opposition, without any evidence? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the reality is that what was said in Opposition is not accountable in this Parliament for the Government. But it's understandable when you see the Treasury commissioned a report when they were in Government—they made a report in July of last year, talking about how the whole thing was a massive failure, and, worse than that, massive losses were occasioned by wasted food or food being sent home. It was meant to be food in schools, not food in homes. This was careless spending which was never budgeted to go forward into the year we're talking about, and that's why Mr Seymour's having to handle this problem. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How many schools and tamariki would be impacted by a 30 percent to 50 percent cut to the free school lunches? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At the moment, the Minister is doing work on that, going through school after school. But the reality is that there are some very, very disturbing reports about the amount of waste. There is surely no one who believes in this programme, which was supported across this Parliament, who thinks that that sort of waste should remain unaccountable. I know some people in this country, because they know nothing about poverty, think that sort of waste is good. But out there in the real Māori world and Polynesian world, they want the food delivered to schools to be used by those children, and not by everybody else who's not entitled to it. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which schools or kura have been consulted regarding potential cuts to the free lunches programme? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the reality is that the Government has put its programme out there, it's gone public on it, it's working its way through it. But it is a result of a July 2023 evaluation that came from Treasury to that Government about which they did precisely nothing. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that hunger impacts a child's ability to learn, and, if so, will he commit to preserving the school lunch programme, given that poverty is not a choice for tamariki? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that if some people have a memory, they'll realise that for decades and decades and decades, free lunches have been available at school, made by the local community, and I'm not being chauvinist here but usually made by the senior girls, because they could be trusted. Many of us remember it. Hon Shane Jones: Māori Women's Welfare League. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Māori Women's Welfare League—all involved. But we will ensure that every cent we spend for the purpose gets to the purpose and does not amount to waste. Rawiri Waititi: What evidence has he seen that military boot camps will work to reduce youth crime? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The evidence is to be found in a very insightful piece of work that began in 2017 with the Limited Service Volunteers, which was so successful under Ron Mark, an enlightened Minister of Defence at the time, that they decided to enlarge it. The evidence is all there. Ask people like punanga, ask people who actually were the head of the military of this country of their understanding. It has transformed Māori lives, in particular. Rawiri Waititi: How can he be confident that these boot camps will work when the last time a National Government introduced them in 2008, 85 to 87 percent of those in the programme went on to reoffend within two years? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, obviously, the present Government has learnt from the past experience, learnt from the mistakes, has got the record of the Limited Service Volunteers success story, and, more importantly, in the Māori world, where so many people are so disconnected, this is one utility that will connect them to the rest of the country and make their lives real. We believe, as punanga and all those great Māori leaders believe, that the military can transform and change people's lives and make them law abiding at the same time. Question No. 6—Resources 6. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made regarding petroleum exploration? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Today, I've announced one petroleum exploration permit has been granted to Greymouth Gas Turangi Ltd. I have also announced that I'll be introducing a bill later this year that will overturn the previous regime's ban on new permits for petroleum exploration beyond the onshore Taranaki region. Important steps in the journey of New Zealand's resilience. Tanya Unkovich: Why do we need oil and gas? Hon SHANE JONES: The former ban, soon to disappear, created inordinate sovereign risk for investment in New Zealand. Advice and modelling shows that the supply of gas is uncertain and may not match future demand. We need gas to keep the lights on in the electricity system, and, as the responsible Minister, on a cold and chilly night, I don't want to see the men and women of New Zealand reduced to jiggling to keep warm. Tanya Unkovich: What else is he working on? Hon SHANE JONES: I will be introducing, as I said, a bill to overturn the crippling and ghastly announcement that led to a cessation of new permits for petroleum exploration. As an act of penance, I am going to visit investors overseas, talk to New Zealand current investors, and convince them that was a minor negative blip in the recent trajectory of New Zealand history. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Further to the answer on his behalf in the House on 29 February, when it was stated that he had written to those people for their views and ideas in regard to the taxpayer-funded underwrite for the oil and gas industry, who were those people? Hon SHANE JONES: I have spoken to lobbyists, representatives of all of the members of the peak body. I have shared what I heard from them publicly, and I bet the majority of the English-speaking world have heard my views. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance because I was asking in regard to an answer that had been given on behalf of the Minister in this House: that he had written to those people for their views and ideas. It was an answer in the House— SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah—get to the point. Hon Dr Megan Woods: —and the Minister did not tell us who he had written to. He was very specific: he said he had spoken. I asked who he had written to. SPEAKER: OK. Well, we can get pedantic if we like, but he just has to address your question. He did, and he said that he had spoken to all members of the peak body that represents the extractive industries. Now, interpretation of that is not for me; it's for the House. Steve Abel: What is the Minister's response to the International Energy Agency Executive Director, Fatih Birol, who said three years ago in 2021, "If Governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas, and coal, from now—from this year [2021]."? Hon SHANE JONES: I am aware of those remarks. I am also aware of the feelings and the concerns amongst the New Zealand voting public who want the lights on. Gas exploration, gas development, gas delivery will be an integral feature of our ongoing electricity system until such time the clean green dream comes true. Tanya Unkovich: What does the lack of interest from industry in Block Offer 2020 mean for the new Government's plans for reinstating offshore petroleum exploration? Hon SHANE JONES: Our Government is committed to rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand as an attractive and secure destination. They have raised the question: what about if the Government changes?—to wit my response has been: wait 12 years. Question No. 7—Public Service 7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by her answer, "I make that promise", said in response to the question, "Will you promise no cuts to any front-line services"; if so, why has Fire and Emergency New Zealand been told their front-line services are "not necessarily immune" from Public Service cuts? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for the Public Service): Well, yes, I do. With respect to the second part of the question about Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), the member is referring to an email written by somebody at FENZ, an extract of which I've seen for the first time today. I am not responsible for that email, although I can't see why the member is so offended by an email that says "front-line services are to be protected" and "unless clearly obvious that efficiencies can be gained without affecting services". Perhaps, if members opposite had had a thought about efficiency over the past six years, we wouldn't have 80 percent increases in spending without better public services delivered. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Weren't New Zealanders entitled to know before the election that cuts to the 111 emergency call centre and vital supports for firefighters were part of her plan, and that her promise of no front-line cuts was worthless? Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member opposite has made a series of factually wrong assertions, which I was always advised as an upcoming member that you should be very careful in your questions to ensure that any statements you made were correct and defendable. The statements that member has made are incorrect and indefensible. SPEAKER: That would also be a reasonable answer to what was a borderline question. So perhaps if the Minister would like to address those same points as an answer to that question. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, how wrong she is—let me count the ways. Fire and Emergency New Zealand has not been set a savings target. As a Crown entity, it has been asked by its monitoring agency, the Department of Internal Affairs, to look for savings and to operate efficiently. I would also note for the member that the vast majority of the funding that Fire and Emergency New Zealand receives is received by way of levy, not by Crown funding. So the question from the member is confused. It is wrong. Firefighters can be assured, under this coalition Government, they can get on and fight fire. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by the Government's commitment to 6.5 percent savings in police, when they have advised their Minister that the cuts they would need to make would undermine their ability to recruit an additional 500 front-line police officers? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have said on a number of occasions, our Government will ensure that front-line services are protected in the Budget 2024 savings exercise. We have asked agencies to put forward their proposals for delivering more efficiency; for eliminating back-room waste; for ensuring that they're not spending too much on consultants and contractors, low-value programmes, and ineffective programmes. Agencies have been asked to put forward proposals. We will then, as Ministers, evaluate those proposals before making any decisions. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So, in that case, can she guarantee that the 6.5 percent savings she has asked for from police will be reinvested in the police budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she conduct her line-by-line analysis of wasteful spending in a way that puts public servants out of work but didn't manage to uncover that the Prime Minister was claiming an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home he owns while being able to stay at Premier House? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it may be the view of that member that every single extra public servant her Government employed was the best use of a Government dollar. But, on this side of the House, we know that the needs in our schools, the needs in our hospitals, and the need to fight law and order are such that we must ensure that every dollar of taxpayer money goes to its best use in our front-line services, and we make no apologies for driving more value from the enormous amount of Government spending that goes on. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she justify the Government prioritising an unnecessary sixth investigation into the benefits of giving poor kids lunch, when the Prime Minister's claiming of an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home went unnoticed? SPEAKER: No, hang on. Have a go at bringing that question into line. There was a use of a term in there that's not appropriate. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she justify the Government's prioritisation of a sixth investigation into the benefits of giving poor kids lunch, when the Prime Minister's claiming of an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home went unnoticed? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as the member should know, the outgoing Government left an enormous fiscal cliff for the school lunch programme. What that meant was there wasn't funding provided for that programme into the future. Now, our good, responsible Government has decided that we will safeguard funding so that programme can continue. And in doing so, in line with our values, we will ensure that we're delivering it in a cost-effective, high-value manner, because unlike that member, we don't think it's a good use of taxpayers' funds to have uneaten lunches stacked a tower high. That's wasteful, and we're going to make sure the programme's more efficient. Question No. 8—Housing 8. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made on the Government's housing priorities? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): This afternoon, alongside the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the Associate Minister of Housing, I announced a series of first steps the Government has taken to end the large-scale use of emergency housing. It will be fair to say this is one of the biggest public policy failures in New Zealand history. Under the last Government's watch, thousands of children were just consigned to growing up in motels. As part of our 100-day plan, we established a Priority One category for families with children in emergency housing, helping them move into social housing faster. One of this Government's priorities is to end the large-scale use of emergency housing motels. This is no solution to our housing crisis. Nancy Lu: What actions is the Government taking to implement this new Priority One category? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Between now and August, we'll be working to strengthen emergency housing verification processes, review eligibility settings, limit discretion, and clarify an applicant's responsibilities while in emergency housing. This will help make sure that it is only accessed where absolutely necessary, and, in the meantime, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff will be assessing anyone applying for emergency housing to increase their scrutiny of whether or not they've unreasonably contributed to their immediate housing needs, whether they've taken reasonable efforts to access other housing options, and whether they've previously paid their emergency housing contribution. Nancy Lu: What are the next steps the Government will be taking when it comes to ending the large-scale use of motels for emergency housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This Government is committing committed to ending the large-scale use of emergency housing motels and returning them to a rarely and briefly needed last resort. I want to be clear with the House that solving emergency housing will not be easy and it will not happen immediately. I also want to be clear that we are considering bold and radical steps. We'll be exploring a range of options, including better support to prevent the need for emergency housing in the first place, as well as for those who exit, and we'll be applying a social investment lens to this problem, targeting support where people need it and looking at innovative options like social bonds. Nancy Lu: What actions have been taken to streamline accountability within Government regarding emergency housing? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the things that came up a lot in the last term of the Parliament was the confusing lines of accountability in this area, where it was never really clear who was actually responsible for emergency housing. The Prime Minister has agreed that between Ministers Upston, Potaka, and myself, the housing-related functions of MSD, including emergency housing, will sit within the housing portfolio, and that will be delegated to Minister Potaka as Associate Minister of Housing. Without clear lines of responsibility, there can't be accountability—this Government is not scared of either. Solving emergency housing won't be easy and it won't happen immediately. We will take those bold and radical steps to end the scourge and blight on our landscape of thousands of kids growing up in motels. Question No. 9—Transport 9. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: Will it be possible for the New Zealand Transport Agency and councils to deliver integrated transport projects that include other improvements, such as busways, bus lanes, public transport stops, and footpaths as part of larger road or highway projects, under his draft Government Policy Statement on- transport? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he received any advice on whether the statement on page 25 of the Government policy statement (GPS) regarding State highway improvements: "The Government expects that funding in this activity class will not be used to make multimodal improvements, i.e., cycleways and busways"—what impact that statement will have on the cost-effectiveness and delivery of integrated transport projects? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there is also another activity class called public transport improvements and if the New Zealand Transport Agency or a council would like to make an investment which includes improvements to the roads, they would apply for funding under the State highway improvements. If they also want to make investments around public transport improvements, they'd apply for funding under the public transport investment activity class. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is it his expectation that the New Zealand Transport Agency will futureproof for public transport and safe walking and cycling access when building the new priority urban highways that his Government has promised? Hon SIMEON BROWN: It's my expectation that the New Zealand Transport Agency and road controlling authorities will give effect to the Government policy statement on transport, and that outlines the activity classes, what they will be used to fund, and our expectations around what the priority projects are. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware that no previous Government policy statement, including under the last National Government, ever treated transport funding and delivery in this way—there was no comparable statement in previous GPSs that excluded multimodal funding from State highway projects? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this is a very new Government and a very focused Government, and we're focused on outcomes. So when we say that the State highway improvement activity class should be about focusing on building roads, we don't expect that that money will be spent on then building a cycleway. The last Government, in their last draft GPS, wanted to use the road maintenance budget to build cycleways. Well, that's not what this Government's priorities are. It's to fix potholes. So we have a very focused draft GPS and I just say to the member: submissions are open until 2 April; I encourage her to make a submission. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does his expectation for the transport agency and road controlling authorities, set out on page 25 and 26 of the GPS, to prioritise reliable travel times and investment decisions apply to users of public transport or does it only apply to motor vehicles? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our expectation is that the New Zealand Transport Agency and road controlling authorities would focus on reducing travel times, reliable travel times, so that people can get where they need to go quickly and safely. Under the last Government there was no consideration for people's time. We want to make sure the transport system is working to reduce travel times so that people get where they need to go quickly and safely, regardless of what mode they choose to take. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific about whether prioritising reliable travel times applied to all users of the transport system or whether it only applies to travel times for motor vehicles, private motor vehicles. SPEAKER: The answer was pretty clear that the expectation is that people will be able to travel as quickly and speedily as possible. I don't think you could take anything else out of that answer. Hon Julie Anne Genter: So— SPEAKER: I'm not arguing with you, and you shouldn't argue with me. Any further questions? Then we'll move now to question No. 10 in the name of Tom Rutherford. Question No. 10—Transport 10. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about transport investment in New Zealand? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well, earlier this week the Prime Minister and I released the draft Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport, announcing that we're establishing a $500 million pothole prevention fund to tackle the record number of potholes on our roads. There were over 62,000 potholes needing repair on the State highway network last year—a new record made by that last Government—causing damage to vehicles and travel disruptions for Kiwis around the country. We will address it. Ryan Hamilton: What does the Government policy statement mean for the mighty Waikato? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Great news for the mighty Waikato—great news. We've listed State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere, which was, in fact, cancelled by the previous Government. It will be a road of national significance. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I doubt I have to say it, but that was a patsy question and a swipe at the previous Government's policies—entirely inappropriate. SPEAKER: It's a fair enough point of order. Supplementary questions cannot be used to mount an attack on a previous Government. That's always been the case. So I'm going to ask Ryan Hamilton if he'd like to ask a question again. Same question, but we'll get a different answer, I hope. Ryan Hamilton: What does the Government policy statement mean for the mighty Waikato? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, great news for the mighty Waikato—great news. We've listed State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere as a road of national significance, to improve economic growth and boost productivity. Reports show that this project is expected to contribute up to $500 million a year to New Zealand's GDP, benefiting all New Zealanders. Suze Redmayne: What does the Government policy statement mean for New Zealand's rural communities? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, very good news for our rural communities. The draft GPS ensures the maintenance funds are ringfenced to fix potholes and to prevent potholes by ensuring that State highways, local and rural roads, are maintained to a safe and reliable standard. Our rural communities are fed up with the number of potholes peppering our roads. And unlike the previous Government—oh no, I won't say that. Miles Anderson: What does the Government policy statement mean for the South Island? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Very good news—very good news. In addition to the Woodend bypass and second Ashburton bridge, the draft GPS prioritises investment in a number of critically important bridge replacements, which is very important to the South Island. Our $500 million pothole prevention fund will also strengthen the South Island's roading network. Road maintenance levels are down by 27 percent in the last five years. Our Government is fixing this issue for all New Zealanders, including those in the South Island. Question No. 11—Small Business and Manufacturing 11. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: Does he stand by his statement that "There is a problem with late payments and long payment terms by large market players"? Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing): Yes. However, I went on to say that the Business Payment Practices Act is not an effective solution, and that's why we've proposed a number of initiatives to try and speed up payment times. Helen White: What, if anything, in his voluntary code would stop a large business taking advantage of a small or medium business or a sole trader by withholding or delaying payments? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: That is the purpose of the code, which is to make sure that there are good measures in place to make sure the large companies in New Zealand—and the proposed code is going to cover the top 180 businesses to make sure that they do adhere to good policy around payments. Helen White: Why should a hard-working sole trader have to wait three months or more for payment to come through from a large company after completing the work? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Well, they shouldn't. Helen White: Would he be open to considering an alternative to the Business Payment—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on. Wait. Start again. Helen White: Sorry, sir. Would the Minister be open to considering an alternative to the Business Payment Practices Act 2023 that would make late payers liable for a fair interest rate if they haven't made their payment within 30 days? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: One of the initiatives that I've proposed is to make sure that people are aware of their rights under the Fair Trading Act. That is, obviously, administered by the Commerce Commission, and I think that's the best place where that issue should be dealt with. Hon Damien O'Connor: Oh rubbish—what a load of rubbish. Helen White: Why is he imposing additional costs— SPEAKER: Hang on. Just wait for your colleague here to finish. [Interruption] Yeah, they're all getting a go now. Helen White: Thank you. Why is he imposing additional costs on every small business in New Zealand? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Well, I could ask the member why did the last Government impose $3.2 billion of additional compliance costs on small business, but I wouldn't do that. What I would say is that we are improving payment times, particularly through the initiative around e-invoicing. One of the biggest productivity gains that we can incur in New Zealand is to help small businesses to move to e-invoicing. The way that we're proposing to incentivise them to do that is to ensure that Government agencies pay in even quicker time. I'm working towards a payment of five working days. That is the best thing we can do for small businesses. Helen White: Supplementary? SPEAKER: No, all done. Helen White: All done? SPEAKER: Yeah. Question No. 12—Justice 12. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What progress has the Government made in relation to restoring law and order? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The coalition Government is making excellent progress in fulfilling its hundred-day plan commitments in justice, that are the first steps in our plan to rebuild confidence in the justice system and to restore law and order. Just this morning, the Legal Services Amendment Bill passed its third reading; it will stop taxpayer funding for section 27 cultural reports, that proliferated out of control under the former regime, consuming more than $7 million out of the legal aid budget. When this Government says it will do something, it does. Cameron Brewer: What other commitments within the 100-day plan to restore law and order is the Government delivering on? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we've abolished the previous Government's prison reduction target, that bore no relationship to the level of crime in our community. Tomorrow, we'll introduce legislation to give police extra powers to deal with gangs. We're making gang membership an aggravating factor in sentencing, we're giving police greater powers to search for firearms, and as you heard from my colleague Minister Chhour yesterday, we're giving the justice system extra tools to deal with the repeat serious youth offenders. Cameron Brewer: Why is restoring law and order so important? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, indeed; that's a good question. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities. Gang membership has increased by 51 percent in the previous six years, violent crime up by 33 percent, ram raids went up by 290 percent, and victims of retail crime by 110 percent. These are not statistics that anyone in this House should be proud of, and that is why we need to act. Hon Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What changes is this Government making to the firearms prohibition orders regime to better prevent gang members and violent offenders from accessing firearms? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A very good question. The Associate Minister of Justice has announced new measures to give police greater powers to search gang members for firearms, and for gang members or associates that have been convicted of significant offence to be issued with firearms prohibition orders. These orders will keep firearms out of their hands and help keep the public safe. I thank the Minister for her excellent work. Hon Nicole McKee: What message does this Government's inclusion of gang membership as an aggravating factor during sentencing send to the gangs? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it's quite simple. Gangs for too long have been allowed to behave as if they are above the law—they are not. The Government is serious about restoring law and order, and if you're a member or an associate of a gang, expect serious consequences, because the tolerance you once enjoyed has ended. Cameron Brewer: What feedback, if any, has the Minister received on recent policy announcements relating to restoring law and order? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I do note one commentator, who said in response to the Government plans to address harm caused by gangs, "If police have probable cause and know someone's a gang member they should be able to go after them with the full force of the law knowing that Parliament, politicians and the community has their back." That commentator was one Stuart Nash. Cameron Brewer: What will the Government do after the 100-day plan commitments are delivered? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, throughout the next three years, this Government will be relentlessly focused on restoring law and order. After the hundred-day plan commitments are delivered, we will progress work including the reinstatement of the three-strikes legislation and limiting excessive sentencing discounts. New Zealanders want to see real consequences for crime. SPEAKER: Can I ask that when members leave the House, they do so without having conversations all the way out the door. BUSINESS PAYMENT PRACTICES ACT REPEAL BILL Third Reading Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing): I move, That the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time. We're closing in on the final bit of this piece of legislation. The reason why we're putting through the repeal bill is that, simply, the proposals that were put forward by the previous Government will not work, will not derive any tangible benefit. This was borne out by the Australian example where this similar arrangement was put in place in 2020, and the independent review of it late last year concluded that, basically, it wasn't working. Only 1 percent of small businesses were even aware of the scheme, and in many cases they weren't making use of the information. The issue of this is that even if we were to put this process in place in New Zealand, the information is only up to date if made up to date every six months, and companies have four months to then work out what the response is. So, at any point in time, the information is 10 months old. The alternative, of course, was that many, and virtually anyone, can go to an independent credit agency, get the same information, and, in fact, a lot more financial information on payment arrangements and history, and pay a mere fee of $35 per application. That is the principal issue. We've traversed this a lot this morning in the debates; I've got to reiterate that this Government is concerned about late payments. There is no issue or argument across the House—it is important that small businesses get access to payments on a timely basis because cash is the lifeblood of small businesses. But, simply, the proposal put forward by the previous Government would not work, did not work in Australia, and so I've put forward, on behalf of the coalition of Government, a number of initiatives. First of all, I'm working with the Minister of Finance to ensure that Government agencies make their payment time of 10 working days, and we will be proactively publishing the results on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website. Secondly, we are expected to ask Crown entities to also enter a similar arrangement, but it is appropriate that we go through a period of consultation. It's expected to take a couple of months, but, assuming that all works to plan, those entities will also be captured. That should be Government entities numbering more than a hundred. And it should be worthwhile just bearing in mind that the Government accounts for about a third of the economy and spends about $50 billion to $55 billion a year on procurement of goods and services. The other aspect we're doing is that we really want to encourage e-invoicing. As I said before in question time, e-invoicing offers one of the greatest productivity gains for small businesses. Xero are quoted every year saying that if small businesses were to adopt one new application, such as e-invoicing, then they estimate a benefit to the economy of $8.5 billion. It wouldn't quite pay off the interest rate that we're having to pay everywhere because of the huge amount of debt we've assumed over the last six years, but it would go some way to avoid growing the economy. So we want to make sure that Crown agencies and organisations are e-invoicing capable, which means they can receive and send such data. If they do so, then they would be required to pay within a target of five working days. I think it's very important to understand what e-invoicing is—some people misinterpret it. That is not working out an invoice for a Government agency and then putting it on an e-mail and sending it to someone, e-invoicing is the direct transfer of data between both entities. It does not involve any invoicing function at all, that is already automatically calculated as part of the e-invoicing arrangement. To further [Coughs]—excuse me—incentivise small businesses, that is why we're proposing a target of five working days, because that means they get paid even more rapidly from Government agencies. The third element is that I'm working with Kirk Hope from BusinessNZ. We're going to work on an industry-led payment code to make sure that large players, large companies in New Zealand, do have good rules around paying small businesses in a timely basis, and there are, obviously, rules and conditions that should go around that. The last thing is just making people aware, small business owners in particular—but raising the awareness of the issues of redress options under the Fair Trading Act 1986. So those are some of the specific things that we will be doing. We can do all of those, virtually without any legislation—I'm not sure we're going to need any legislation in fact. But we will be putting those in place as soon as we can because it is very important that our small businesses do have access to the cash when they render goods and services. That is the intent of this bill, because what we don't want people doing is spending a lot of money on a useless system that will not derive any substantive, discernible benefit for small businesses. That's why I commend the bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to draw this House's attention to a couple of articles that have been published in the last 24 hours. They're about the UK and they address this very issue. So one is in The Times and I've got one here that I'm going to quote from. They're, essentially, based on the same issue. The Xero company that the Minister referred to as in support of e-invoices, and he sees this as very much the solution—is the very group that did the research into the problem in the UK of late payment of unimproved debt. It said that in the UK, small businesses face a $1.6 billion deficit. That's how much it's costing them—it's costing them $1.6 billion. That's because big companies aren't paying them, and then it means that those small companies are in the credit system and they're paying higher interest rates. So it's a very cumulative effect and it's hurting small businesses. What Xero said about that—and it was a man called, by the looks of things, Alex von Schirmeister, who's Xero's UK managing director; he said, "His call to action is clear—it's time to hold larger corporations accountable for their payment practices. By ensuring that small[er] suppliers are paid on time, the economic ecosystem can foster a healthier, more sustainable environment for growth. [His] stance is a rallying cry for change, urging stakeholders to reevaluate their payment ethics in … face of this crisis." That's what he calls it; he calls it a crisis. He talks about it being a systemic issue where the very fabric of economic reliability and trust is undermined. And so it is hurting our small businesses, and those big businesses are absolutely doing something reprehensible when they withhold payment in this way. Now, the Minister tells me that the answer to this are some things that aren't part of this bill; they're apparently promised to come. One is the encouragement of e-invoices. I have suggested to the Minister that there is no problem with support for encouraging e-invoices, but it sits alongside this bill; it doesn't sit as a replacement to it. E-invoices are all very well, but, obviously, the person from Xero, who is involved in e-invoicing, knows that and still thinks there is a problem. So we need more than that tool in the tool box. Again, we are burning the things that have been done that are steps to support small businesses, before replacing them with anything comprehensive. Now, another thing that has been suggested and was suggested in the questions in the House today is: what's wrong with something that adds to this situation, gives it teeth? Why aren't we looking at accounting for the profits that are made by big businesses when they withhold payments like this for, often, months on end? Why aren't they paying the cost? Why are we shoving that on to our small businesses? That's a shame. That is a shame that we're doing that. These are the small businesses in New Zealand that make up 97 percent of our workforce—97 percent of our businesses are small and they're struggling. Our productivity is a problem in New Zealand because those small businesses are undercapitalised. They need this money much more than the big businesses that are withholding, and yet we are taking away that tool. The Minister's also told me that his alternative to this is a voluntary code. Well, the secret's in the name: "a voluntary code". It's going to be a voluntary code where people may or may not hold this part of a bargain. I hope that in my speech today, I have pointed out that what is going on here is not OK. It's never OK. It's not a case of volunteering; this is someone else's hard work. The small business has invoiced the big business, it has done the work, and to suggest that it's OK for a big business to profit off that and to shove all the costs, have free credit, treat the small business as a bank—that is a reprehensible action. That is very much what Government should be doing: they should be getting involved in this. Now, this is exactly a difference between the Labour Party and the current Government. The Labour Party actually believes in small business. They don't just pipe it up, wrap it up, see it all as one thing; it is an actual belief in small business. I know that the small businesses in this country are often on the bones—they're working on the bones of the situation; they are not well-heeled, they do not have enough money for that kind of carry on. I know that because they have walked in my door; as a lawyer, I have seen what has happened to them. I know all about those sole traders. It is of concern to me that we are having a law go through where these kinds of real crisis paid by small businesses are not at the forefront of the priority of our Minister for small business, or his colleagues in the Government, because there is an underlying ideology and there is an ideological difference. The belief seems to be that if big businesses do well, if profits boom, even at the price of these small businesses, that's good for the economy because it will all trickle down. Well, that has never worked. It's a beautiful dream. It doesn't work. We have not seen it trickle down. If we look at our productivity stats, we will see that there is a real problem in this country. If I run a small business, when I don't get paid for three or four months, it's a pretty big deal. If I'm a sole trader and I am just working for that one entity, which is true of so many people in this country now, it is absolutely back-breaking when that happens. It means that people lose their houses. It means they can't feed their kids. This commitment that I have to a dignified work situation isn't a game. I believe that people in this country should be able to run small businesses and they should be able to make some money in this country, and big business should not be allowed off the hook when, in fact, the work has been done. The House heard my friend Reuben Davidson read from a constituent today, and it's a very good letter from a constituent. It is a letter that talks about the real harm done when someone just refuses to pay. Now, small businesses do that to each other—I appreciate that people do that to each other. But why wouldn't we have the standard set when we are dealing with our biggest businesses? We are talking the top 3 percent of businesses. We are talking about businesses where they are contracting for services for over $10 million a year. They are businesses worth $33 million per annum. Those are our big businesses. Why wouldn't we set the standard for those people? Why wouldn't we expect them to report that information—to collect it, to be mindful of it, and to report it? Why wouldn't we do that? Is that such a burden? We hear about red tape. We've heard about it today. This is the cover for this stuff: "It's going to cause red tape." This doesn't cause red tape for small businesses; what actually ignoring the situation is is actually ignoring the harm and the red tape caused for small businesses as they seek credit somewhere else, as they try and deal with a situation. I think the woman in the story from Reuben Davidson today had written to the default payer 16 times and had received excuses and hadn't been paid. That's red tape. That is our concern. We need standards in this country and we need to recognise that big businesses are very powerful. They're more powerful than they've been for a long time, for more than one generation. They are more powerful now. Our job in this House is to hold steady and to advocate for the people in this country who are not big businesses. That is the wonderful thing about democracy. We have to hold them to account. Our job as Government is to step in when necessary, not step in lightly. But that isn't stepping in lightly now, is it? This is something that we should have done. I cannot commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: I should have said earlier that the question is that the motion be agreed to. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was talking with my nephew earlier today, who's a partner in a small business called SpicyBoys. They make some fantastic chilli sauce in Christchurch, and I recommend that to the other members of the House; it really gets you going. And I would like the members opposite to get going on something that will save small business, on something that will help small business thrive, something that will help our small to medium sized enterprises to function well and continue to be productive and ensure that they get paid on time, because the repeal of this bill does not improve productivity. The Government has no plan to help small business thrive in challenging economic times. We've heard that there's seven or maybe nine points coming, but as usual, the Government is ignoring those who are doing it hard now—and those who take risks, those who are the innovators, those who are really trying hard—and it is rewarding the slackers, the big businesses who simply want to screw their customers. I can't comprehend why the Government would want to do that. Why, as my colleague Helen White mentioned, you would want to favour the corporates, the very, very wealthy, the big businesses who can afford so easily to do right by their customers. Some of them do, but many of them don't and that makes it extremely hard for small to medium sized enterprises to function. So we've heard that e-invoicing is going to be one of the solutions. E-invoicing is not an innovation; it's been around for 20 years. And what's more, it's not a solution. Why has it not been implemented? Independent research by Kordia, today, gives us some reasons as to why: more than two-thirds of people using e-invoicing experienced an impact from a cyber incident, with nearly half, 46 percent, finding it took more than a month to resolve the incident, including 9 percent saying it took more than five months or more. E-invoicing is not a solution. Moreover, 70 percent of business leaders say they would consider paying a ransom to a cyber-criminal. But the Government's telling us that they could not deal with a business payments programme. I mean, what's wrong here? We have heard so many good ideas. We've heard a willingness to discuss, to ensure that we can have something better, and all we've heard is a tribal retrenchment into an urgent debate over something that is not that consequential but is going to make such a big difference to small business. And this, to me, just seems ridiculous. Why would you want to hold the line on this through urgency when you could reach across the aisle and start to talk? Put it into select committee; let us hear from those small businesses; document at least who you've spoken to; let us engage on this rather than simply being tribal about it. There's so much more you could do, and yet you seem unwilling. Isn't the Government tired of simply rejecting things? Isn't it time to invest in some solutions? Don't you get tired of saying no? Don't you get tired of breaking stuff? It is so hard to make things. It's so hard, but much more valuable and much more rewarding to create, to bring joy to people, to give security to small businesses and small to medium sized enterprises. You could do this if are willing, if you had the political will. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Mr Willis, when you say "you", you're addressing the Chair. You probably mean "members across the other side" or terms to that effect. SCOTT WILLIS: Indeed I do, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that reminder. I'm still getting used to the process in the House and every so often I get carried away. However, we do have an opportunity, and I do hope that this is not the end, that there is something better that comes out of the process. But given the quality of the argument that I've heard from the Government, I think as an optimist I will yet again be disappointed. I do think that we have heard a lot in a short time, but we haven't heard a lot of common sense from the opposite side and that is really disappointing. I simply would like the Government to consider what the Government and the party opposite has heard from this side of the House: the willingness to engage, the desire to find a solution for our small to medium sized enterprises, for those people who are doing it hard, those people who are the backbone of business in New Zealand, those people we care about, but clearly you don't. But we would like you to care—we would like you to care. We would like you to care about business. Hon Marama Davidson: We would like "them" to care. SCOTT WILLIS: We would like the members opposite to care. And thank you for the reminder from my colleagues over there; we're getting used to it. And if they do care, we can work together through a select committee process. We can work together, and we can hear from small business who would love to contribute to something better than this dog's breakfast of a repeal. Kia ora. LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 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 3,000-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. TANYA 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. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise for the third reading of this bill. Like I said in the other readings, this Government continues to prioritise corporations, who actually have a different tax rate to many others. These big corporations have a different tax rate; again, benefiting off the backs of small-business owners. Ignoring small-business owners is at this Government's peril. They make up a quarter of the country's GDP. We've got 21,000 Māori business owners out there. And I heard the Minister say that he had a dinner with them—I doubt very much that he actually talked to them about this specific bill—and say that he's got another dinner with them this weekend. By then it will be too late. It would have passed in the next hour. So, again, the consultation with Māori businesses around this particular issue and the impact that it has on them to be able to pay their staff, to be able to keep the business going—it is going to have huge impact on those small businesses and on the whānau that work in those businesses. We've all been small-business owners ourselves—grew up on a dairy farm. We've also been into horticulture, agriculture and also consultancy. If I don't have the ability to be able to pay my bills on time, that could mean huge impacts on the particular company that I have. I understand this intimately. So this bill, once again, diminishes the mana of small-business owners, who play a huge part in this country's GDP. Whānau who own businesses, and whānau who employ people in those businesses have now got to tell them that there is no security that the people they're providing services and goods to are going to be paying on time. There's no security for that. This is the impact. And this is not about having e-invoices, because e-invoices have been around for a long time. A lot of people already have e-invoices. I was doing e-invoices before I came to Parliament. This is not about e-invoices. This is about tying up the ability for small businesses and taking the power away from them to ensure that they can pay their employees and the bills on time. I can't see how this House and this Government can support this type of bill, because it makes absolutely no sense to me. And then to insult small-business owners to say that they cannot navigate their way through the current system, I think is an insult to those small-business owners. You wouldn't have a small business if you couldn't run a small business, if you didn't know how to navigate those particular processes to ensure that you had your bills paid on time. Let's just take the supermarkets, for example, and the duopoly. Those farmers—and I know; I've been a provider of those. I come from a farm. If we cannot get our bills paid on time when we provide—whether it's avocados, whether it's sweet corn, whether it's watermelons, whether it's courgettes, whether it's beans, whether it's maize, any of those things. If I can't ensure that the goods and services I provide to those big companies, those companies that have a hold on the duopoly here in Aotearoa, especially the supermarkets who made over $400 million in one year—there's an issue there. There's an issue there. They get a four-month reprieve from paying that particular bill. For many small-business owners, that is unaffordable. We cannot afford that and it would mean many of those small businesses will fold—they will fold. You imagine if the dairy farmers—I grew up on a dairy farm, so I know this intimately. You imagine if the dairy farmers weren't paid over a four-month period by Fonterra. That would mean huge impacts. It would have huge impacts on their particular farm and especially small dairy platforms like we have on the coast. These are the issues that our people are facing. These are the issues that I put to the Minister during the committee stage to answer: who are the Māori organisations, the small-business owners, you have consulted? And there's been no alignment to ensure that the Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles have been upheld here—because te iwi Māori haven't been consulted on this particular issue—to ensure that if we're going to enter into contributing to a quarter of this country's GDP, what is the security for starting that up. What we're going to do is put other small-business owners or even those who have the initiative, the innovation, the creativity to create those—I look at them all online, our people selling kākahu, our people selling art, our people selling taonga and things like that. It's going to have huge issues, and we will not be supporting this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to say this is just absolutely classic from a National - ACT - New Zealand First right-wing Government. This is a classic playbook. They go out and position themselves as the champions of small business, but when they get into power, we see whose interests they really represent. What is happening under urgency right now is that the Government is repealing a bit of legislation that was correcting the power imbalance between large corporates and small business. It wasn't even really penalising those large corporates; it was just asking them to be transparent and allowing them to be accountable for late payments, which is seriously affecting many small-business owners. Of course, in the case of those small businesses, late payments have a much more consequential impact on their functioning, because they're running on the smell of an oily rag, usually, right? They are working as hard as they can to deliver goods and services to the people of New Zealand. The fact that this is being repealed under urgency shows that the Government is more interested in protecting the power of big corporates. Now, I understand there's a huge conflation on that side of the House between what is genuine economic productivity, what genuinely is good for people and planet, and what makes a lot of money for a small group of people. Those two things are different. Generating genuinely productive goods and services, circulating money through the economy—like, you know, you can see that is different than extracting profit and becoming rich. So, like, those are two different things, actually generating the value and then skimming off the surplus. That's why, like, in the 20th century, there was always a real big focus on maintaining a check on the growth of corporate power, the growth of monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies, because those are actually not good for the economy. It's not good for the people of our country. What it is good for is the small group of people who are invested in those big corporates or the people who are on the really exorbitant salaries of those large corporates. So when organisations get really, really large and profitable, they have more power than other people in the economy and they tend to grow more and more and more, and that is actually not good for the economy. If you actually study the economics, people on the other side of the House, and not just, like, Ecom 101 in the 1990s or, you know, as part of their commerce degree or their MBA, they might understand what actually makes an economy work, and it's not letting huge amounts of money get hoarded by small groups of people or organisations. So that is the interest represented by this Government, and under urgency they're getting rid of a perfectly reasonable tool that actually would've helped. I have to say, this is really important, because in the Cabinet paper they say, "Oh, small businesses don't really need this because they can obtain information on which companies have payments in arrears through a credit agency." Oh, a private, for-profit credit agency such as Centrix, which charges $35 to provide this information—$35. Well, it so happens that one of my colleagues has been—in fact, several of them have been small-business owners, and they're able to let us know that if you go get a Centrix report, it doesn't actually cost $35; it costs $49 plus GST per company. So the Government and the people providing the advice are out of touch, and while they say they're reducing cost and red tape, what they're really doing is shifting the burden of it on to small businesses who don't have the power to go chase up their late payments from the big corporates. So, very, very transparent, through their actions, who National, ACT, New Zealand First represent: it is the 1 percent, who keep getting richer through making the economy fundamentally imbalanced and not functioning. Like, the purpose of an economy is simply to facilitate people to trade goods and services and get what they need to have a good life and live a good life. What is happening right now is the extremely rich people and large corporates are extracting profit out of the economy while ordinary people, hard-working people, are seeing their cost of living rise, and at the same time we're seeing the planet face an existential crisis. This bill will not be supported by the Green Party. STUART 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 have 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. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): One of the lasting images of this debate for me is the image of Minister Andrew Bayly sitting down to dinner with a bunch of small-business owners a couple of weeks ago. I would love to have been a fly on the wall and heard the dinner-table conversation, which I think would have gone something like this: "Here, have some more dessert, because I'm just about to completely shaft you by repealing the law that gives you a break and prevents and discourages big business from late paying and having interest-free loans at your expense." I'd really love to have heard that, and I hope that Andrew Bayly paid for that dinner, because he's really making small businesses pay with this legislation. The Minister claimed in his third reading speech—and, actually, throughout the bill's progress through the House—that we all agree: we all agree on the problem, we all agree that something should be done about it; it's just that we have a different way of going about it. But he's asking for a very big leap of faith. He's repealing a mechanism that was put in place that requires transparency and public disclosure from large firms in order to make it clear and transparent to the public and to small businesses their record on payment times. He's true in that I think we all agree, at least in principle, on the problem definition, but the trouble is that this Minister and this Government are pretending to be concerned about this. They are gaslighting the New Zealand public and the small-business sector: half a million small and medium sized enterprises around this country, who employ vast numbers of New Zealanders and generate a very large share of this country's wealth. The Minister has itemised for us what he is intending to do about this problem in lieu of having this legislation on the books. He's going to be having Cabinet require that Government agencies must pay their bills within 10 working days—OK. He's going to be consulting with Crown entities about them doing the same thing. He's going to encourage e-invoicing, something that—I don't know—a dozen times in this debate, members of this House have pointed out is already happening. E-invoicing is not a new thing, it's not an innovation, and it actually doesn't address the problem that the legislation that's being repealed today was designed to fix. It's a red herring. It's a distraction. It's irrelevant to this debate, which is about: how do we fix the problem of large companies taking advantage, abusing their market position, not paying on time, and getting free money at the expense of small businesses? The Minister has offered up a voluntary code of conduct. Why would he think that large companies with a significant financial benefit from not paying their bills on time would voluntarily change their practice when there's no transparency? There's no public disclosure. Well, why woold they change? Because it feels good? Because the Government is asking them to, through having a voluntary code of conduct? It's completely implausible. It lacks credibility. Then, the fifth thing that the Minister offered up was making small-business owners aware of the redress that they have under the Fair Trading Act and other legislation. Well, the case has been made very persuasively through this debate that that is not a real solution—that is, the remedies are not clear, they're not accessible, it takes time, and it takes money. It's simply not a realistic option for small businesses. So this agenda—so-called agenda—has been cobbled together by the Minister as a kind of fig leaf for what he is doing here, which is repealing a mechanism that was put in place. It may not be perfect, but at least it offered a genuine prospect of changing the behaviour of large companies, who are the culprits here. We know that they are rorting the system and ripping off small businesses by not paying on time. The Minister is repealing that, he's getting rid of it, and he's not putting anything credible in its place. We've had to listen to hours of infantile rhetoric from the Government benches about red tape as if all regulation was somehow bad, when the law that is being repealed here would have imposed an obligation for public disclosure on New Zealand's largest companies, and no doubt there would have been some cost associated with that. But it offered the benefit for small businesses that they would be able to know who of their suppliers had a decent record of paying their bills on time. So, as Julie Anne Genter rightly pointed out, the Government is simply shifting the burden and shifting the cost from big business to small business. This is the party that styles itself as the part of small business and as the great champions of free enterprise. National's lack of interest in actually doing anything that would create a more competitive market gives the lie to their claim to be the party of small business. One of the things that actually distinguishes or characterises the New Zealand economy is its tendency towards the concentration of market power. We're a small economy, and in almost every industry in every sector, there is a tendency for the concentration of market power in two, three, or four different companies, and you see it in everywhere you look. One of the achievements of the last Labour Government was it's giving teeth to the Commerce Commission to allow it to do market studies where it could, basically, require companies to open their books. It gave to the Commerce Commission the legal power to do in-depth studies to get the facts, and then to set out what a pro-competition reform agenda would look like. We've seen that in the building supplies industry, we've seen it in the fuel industry, and we've seen it in relation to the supermarket duopoly, and those reports, indeed, laid out a pro-competition reform agenda that our Government went some way towards implementing. But what we've seen today from the Government with the repeal of this legislation doesn't give me any optimism that the Government has the political will to actually make changes and make reforms to make our economy more competitive. There are two reasons why you would want to have the kind of legislation that's being repealed today. One of them is just basic fairness. Half a million New Zealand small businesses experience insecurity and precariousness because they are completely dependent on their customers paying their bills on time to ensure that they have decent cash flow. We know how hard small businesses work; the risks they take, often investing the family the home, to get businesses started; and the long days and long nights trying to get businesses off the ground. They work incredibly hard, and they deserve a Government that will go in to bat for them. It's a basic question of fairness. The second reason is what's good for the whole economy and what's good for this country. We need good competition policy. We need competitive markets that make our firms more successful, tougher, more innovative, and more fleet of foot, but we also need competitive markets that allow small firms to grow into medium-sized firms and into large firms. The larger firms generally have higher levels of productivity. They're able to invest more in technology and they're able to specialise, and if we don't make it easy for that upward mobility of small firms, then we are dragging down the New Zealand economy and making it less productive, and making us less wealthy as a country. This seems to have completely escaped this Government. This issue, I would have thought, was an opportunity for the current Government to demonstrate its commitment to small business and to competitive markets and productivity. Instead, they have sided with big firms with vested interests against the interests of hard-working small-business owners. At the very least, they would have had the courage to send this bill to select committee and invite small-business owners to come along and have a say and express their view on this issue. But, instead, we get a mixture of reckons and political ideology. CATHERINE 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): It's a split call. Five minutes—Reuben Davidson. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to start with a couple of statements. The first is that this Act addresses a real problem, and the second is a little bit longer. When large organisations take a long time to pay their bills, small businesses with limited working capital are the ones who suffer. Sometimes it is because large players unfairly use their market power. And I'm expecting a breeze to drift across the House from all the nodding heads from the other side, because those words come from the Minister's own document and paper with the rationale and the reasons for what this bill, now being repealed, addresses. Now, I think it's also good for us to get a little bit of context here, because we had two debates about this earlier today, and we've all gone out and had some lunch and left the House and had some question time, and it would be good to bring the focus back to who this bill serves, and that's small businesses. Small businesses are about real people. I'm going to share, as I did earlier, some notes from a local business of Christchurch East, because what we don't want to do is lose sight of the people who are affected by repeals like this. So the first passage I'm going to share is from Sachiko from Kai Connoisseurs, and she says, "Running a business is hard. Being an employer is hard. Paying for kai, staff, rent, and the rest; is hard; and spending my time asking to be paid, over and over for mahi we've already done well that's ho-hard." Her Facebook post is a letter to organisations and corporates using small, local business to provide services that support your kaupapa then forget to support them back. The message is really simple: "Please prioritise paying your bills." And it's signed by "A tired, hard working solo Māmā, business owner, employer and hoha human who's had about enough of asking politely for what we are owed." And this a polite debate about what we all owe to small business. Now, I think it's also worth making a distinction here, because the dynamic in a business relationship is a different power dynamic to the one in a political relationship. In a political relationship, sometimes the smaller parties in the relationship can have a lot of sway over the terms of the negotiation and over the things that are included in the transaction. Sometimes the smaller parties can have unreasonable bottom lines that the larger party bows to. That doesn't happen in business. Small business can't make claims for all sorts of strange, unusual, unexplainable, unreasonable demands and have them included into the business arrangement or a business relationship. That is a power dynamic that I would suggest is exclusive to recent politics. So what I thought I would also do is close in some language that members on the other side will probably find very familiar. So I'll speak to you in your language. What I'm saying really clearly is—I think that's a phrase you're quite accustomed to—we need to aerate the issues; we need to zoom out. This repeal does what I'm doing to you to small business—it condescends. This is a condescending repeal. I hear the Minister's priorities—seven of them—to support small business. My challenge is do eight. Walk and chew gum. It can be done. Small businesses do all they can. The least they deserve is for us to do the same for them. I cannot commend repealing this bill. NANCY 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. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you. I'd like to start my contribution by just acknowledging the small businesses that are out there, the 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand operated mainly by families, by small groups of people who are doing the hard yards for our economy—and many of them come from migrant families—I really want to acknowledge them. I also want to acknowledge those in my electorate, people like the hot yoga studio run by the fabulous Donna. People like Abdal's Gourmet Foods, an amazing small business that is growing and was started by a former Syrian refugee who is really making a difference in our community, both in terms of the business he provides but also just the rich and interesting new palate that he is bringing to the electorate. And many of those small businesses of course took the wage subsidy which helped keep them afloat. Because, as I've maintained through this debate, cash and cash flow is king for small business. I know that as a small-business owner, I know what it was like to have sleepless nights thinking how am I going to pay people when some of my suppliers were late in their payments, and that's what this is all about. But, having listened to the debate, I cannot help but think that the Act, the current system is being repealed as a vanity project by the new Minister. The reason for that is there is no need for the repeal and there has been no use of process and, by the looks of it, not much process going forward. So although the Minister was generous in the committee stage with his contributions, my sense is that he is a Minister who's very hands on, he thinks he knows better than the officials, he thinks he knows better than the public consultation. He's got some good ideas, it's great that he realises that eInvoicing is around—something that has been around for 20 years. But there's been very little process, and unsatisfactory answers to the questions that we put to him in the committee stage about that. The Minister could have just left the current system intact. He has tried to say that there's no point in doing that because the Australians don't like their system. But the very report that he quoted from, he cherry-picked out the things that he wanted to say and left out the most important point, which is that the report recommended that Australia maintain its payment practice system and hinge it more firmly around reputational risk. And it had a number of ways that it said that could be done. That was through making the register more accessible for small-business owners, streamlining the data, and improving the power of the regulator, which I would be surprised if the Minister, knowing how he loves competition law, would have had an issue with. Instead, though, what we have is this repeal bill that has a really patronising general policy statement that assumes that small-business owners do not know how to access data, that they do not know how to interpret the data, and that even if they did, "Oh well, they're not going to have much choice anyway because they're only small-business owners. They don't really have a way to strategise, to choose their own suppliers in the market." Now, I do not know where that general policy statement came from. We asked questions in the committee stage about the underlying assumptions and the advice from officials. There was no regard to that and certainly it hasn't come from any select committee process because I would remind this House that, once again, we are doing this under urgency. So that takes me to my second point: just the lack of process around this; the use of urgency, the lack of a select committee process, and then what appears to be quite a lack of process going forward, if I'm hearing the Minister correctly, because he's talking about a voluntary code that has suddenly come out of the middle of nowhere, suddenly big business wants to introduce this, even though bad payment practices have been going on for decades. He wants us to believe that this code is going to work for small business. Well, where is the process? I asked these questions in the committee stage. I asked where the consultation would be. I asked what the sanctions would be and how this would be linked to reputational risk because, as was pointed out by one of the previous speakers, if there's no link to reputational risk then the system simply won't work. He did not answer any of those questions. Instead, he insisted on talking about his eInvoicing and the fact the Fair Trading Act could be used. Now, he also said that it would be difficult for small business to access information under the current system that the Labour Government introduced. Well, he can't have it both ways. Either we know how to use data, or we don't. This is a terrible repeal bill and I do not commend it. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you very much and I acknowledge my colleague who's provided me with some time. Like every member of Parliament here, we represent an economy based on half a million small businesses. This is an important piece of legislation and I've been asking myself: why are we doing this? Because last year, once again, since 2003, the World Bank has been conducting a survey across 190 economies. Which country is the easiest to do business in? New Zealand. Consistent. I have been proud to say that around the world, as I've promoted our country to exporters, to importers, to investors. We are the easiest country in the world in which to do business, and that is something we should be proud of. After the Labour Government—last year, this judgment, and once again. So all the rhetoric, all the ranting we hear over there about the Labour Government imposing costs and difficulties on small businesses, it's simply not true. We are the easiest country in the world. The reality is there are greater expectations, in part because of lawyers, because of international trade, because of food safety, because of a whole lot of other expectations from discerning customers around the world. There are more requests. This is the easiest country in the world in which to run a business. But over that side of the House, you've got some naive people—very, very naive. They, on the one hand, say, "Oh, the market will determine how things roll through." Well, listen to market signals. Well, the reality is that an emerging and evolving market ends up with some dominant players. It might be in road contracting, it could be in dairy industry or meat industry, it could be in areas of health, it could be in banking. In fact, you know, four big players. There have been many people who've come to the House. If they'd had the chance to come to the select committee and say, "It's pretty unfair. We're a small business and we get beaten up by the big business"—because that's human nature and that's normal commercial evolution. If you're a small business, you want to be a big business and you do your best. In fact, there's a good member over the other side of the House—he's a new member, David MacLeod—who was part of an organisation that actually moved forward in exactly the normal way of commercial evolution. If you're big, you exert your dominance. Fonterra said, "We're going to pay 90 days, not 30 days. We're going to pay in 90 days." Outrageous—outrageous. Why did they do it? Because they could. To be fair to him—and I think he is a good member and I know he looks very uncomfortable with the passage of some of the Government's legislation and changes so I know he's a good member. I'm not sure whether he's on the board—I think he was. Fonterra then u-turned. They realised that in spite of their ability to pay in 90 days, they said there was backlash, there was outrage, and in fact they changed it—and good on them and I acknowledge that. But there are other big, dominant players across this economy that won't do a u-turn because they don't have to. Fonterra's a cooperative and they had many farmer members who had friends who were small business people and they said, "This is unfair. You pay the farmers on the 20th of the month, but you don't pay us until the 20th of the third month." So we brought in legislation to ensure that small businesses had a fair go, and this coalition Government—ACT, National, and New Zealand First—is removing the protection for half a million small businesses across this country. Not all of them will be affected because they may have a good relationship with a supplier or customer or whatever, but there will be some who will be unfairly affected. We are in this Parliament to protect those who can't stand up for themselves. The Minister says, "Oh, you know, you can go for the fair trade Act. There's other pieces of legislation." A small business at a time of global inflation, when the economy's being squeezed by the Reserve Bank, doesn't have the spare cash to get the data and to go to court. So this is a ridiculous piece of legislation being passed through urgency that will undermine the rights of half a million small businesses across our economy. It is outrageous and how any one of those members over there can stand up and say that they are here for enterprise, when under a Labour Government this economy was the best for doing business across the globe—across the globe; across the globe—by the World Bank standings. This will reverse that position. DAVID 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 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 3,500 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 3,500 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 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. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. LAND TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT (REPEAL OF REGIONAL FUEL TAX) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Debate resumed from 27 February. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the call. We will be opposing this bill under urgency. This is a bill that seeks to, essentially, repeal a scheme that is targeted to a part of the country that is in need of transportation as an area of focus. This is a regional fuel tax (RFT) that has a purpose: it has provision for the funding of roads, it has a provision for the funding of buses, it has the provision for the funding of the very things that communities of interest all around Aotearoa New Zealand expect. That should not be the reason as to why Auckland, as our biggest city, should be penalised for that. Many of the vital transport projects that are listed as beneficiaries of this scheme will now be at risk. This is an example of the coalition Government that is seeking to do nothing but to force Auckland into a corner. This will result in cuts to critical transport projects that will make a huge difference. What it will mean for that community is that they will have to turn their mind to either not proceed with many of these transport projects or to look at alternative funding mechanisms such as an increase to rates. When Auckland is faced with increases to rates alongside water issues and the like, it is far from ideal. This is an example of a Government that clearly has no eye towards the future. This is an example of a Government that has no new ideas, and the only aspect of new funding that is coming Auckland's way is a 22c increase to the fuel excise duty and a 50 buck increase in the form of a drivers tax that will be placed on registrations when folks go to register their licence for their vehicle. What's really interesting is that this is a bill, a proposal, that had no regulatory impact statement. What we hear from the coalition Government is that anything that's subject to their 100-day plan is not subject to a regulatory impact statement, and that's very, very unfortunate indeed. But what there is, in front of this House, is a departmental disclosure statement. For the benefit of those who are tuning in at home, what that is, is it, effectively, is an independent assessment or analysis in the absence of a regulatory impact statement, that focuses on many things. One, it is very important, because one of the things that it touches on are the potential costs and potential risks of this proposed change. When we have a look at it, we see that it was prepared towards the end of January 2024. So Minister of Transport Simeon Brown knew about all of this stuff at that time, and he's been sitting on it for a wee while. But it's also been prepared by the independent Ministry of Transport. When we have a look at this particular disclosure statement, what it identifies there is that removing the RFT will result in modest savings for households and businesses in Auckland, and that that figure comes out to around $1.85 for each motorist that's going to use it—$1.85. When this is a Government that is focusing on measures to apparently address cost of living pressures—$1.85. I can tell members opposite, I had a look at what you could get for $1.85 in Auckland— Hon Member: You tell us. TANGI UTIKERE: —and I'll tell the House. What they could get is a 227g of Dole crushed pineapple. That is what this tax is about. Actually, well, the repeal of this tax is going to provide cost of living support in the form of a 225g—that's a small can. And people like pineapple, but we are talking about a small amount there. If this is a Government that is serious about addressing cost of living pressures, this is not the way to go for Auckland. So this is from the independent departmental disclosure statement that identifies that—it also says that "Removing the RFT is unlikely to have a substantive impact on households and this change would need to be made alongside other interventions in order to reduce [that pressure]." Shanan Halbert: What's the point? TANGI UTIKERE: My colleague Shanan Halbert says, "What is the point?" Well, that is a very good question because we are still waiting for the answer. This is a stupid piece of legislation, which is becoming, actually, in the vein of this coalition Government—they like to do things that are stupid in nature. So we will look through these individual projects as we progress through the committee of the whole House stage and others, but, on this side of the House, we are not prepared to support something that will bring no cost relief to the people of Auckland. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill, the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. I think it is worth considering what our options are to raise revenue to pay for infrastructure. While it will be great to have perfect time-of-use pricing for every user, that's not the situation we're in now, and fuel tax has been a very low cost, relatively administratively easy way to raise revenue. And it's a good proxy because generally the people using the roads are generating the need for the infrastructure. One of the things this coalition Government doesn't seem to understand—and it's a real shame, because I feel like they're almost there; they could almost understand this—is that you don't need to use something directly to benefit from it. Road users are the greatest beneficiaries of projects that move more people with fewer cars, especially in an urban area like Auckland. We know this because back in early 2000s, the then National Party in Opposition opposed, with many other doubters, the Northern Busway. They said it would be a white elephant. Now, that Northern Busway was funded from State highway funding. It was the State highway agency—at the time Transit New Zealand, the predecessor to the New Zealand Transport Agency—who saw the opportunity. They said, "We can acquire a corridor, and we can either use it for one lane of traffic or we can use it for a busway." And by using it for a busway, they spent a mere $200 million—incredibly effective investment—and now, $200 million, they were able to build the Northern Busway, which now carries as many people as all the lanes of traffic on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. So let's compare $200 million to the cost of the next additional Waitematā Harbour crossing, which is going to be somewhere between $20 billion and $50 billion. OK, I know numbers aren't their strong suit, but let's picture this. So I know 200 sounds bigger than 20, but, in fact, 200 million is a much, much smaller number than 20 billion, because 20 billion is 20 thousand million, OK? So with the Northern Busway, we had an incredibly effective investment that not only benefited all the people of Auckland because it enabled twice as many people now to travel around at peak time without having to build another bridge or a tunnel, and without all the additional costs that are needed when you build a road. Obviously the people using the road have to pay for the car and there has to be the land for parking their cars somewhere, and they've got to run the car. So there's all these costs that they're missing, and that's why this shouldn't be a political football. People on the political spectrum—the right-wing end of the political spectrum—should not be opposed to sensible, economically efficient investments in transport that benefit everyone. Mr Speaker, you don't need to take the bus to benefit from more people being able to take the bus or the train. And, Mr Speaker, you don't need— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Don't bring the Speaker into this. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: You personally—I mean, oh, OK. Well, you and anyone else—you in the general sense—doesn't need to ride a bike to benefit from infrastructure that means more people make short urban trips by bike instead of a car because the bike takes less room than the car—significantly less room; less parking; and, guess what, bikes don't cause potholes. So the more people who use bikes for short urban trips, the better off the people who are driving the cars, the better the quality of the roads, the less the congestion, the lower the transport costs. So, unfortunately, we have a Government that is mostly innumerate, incapable of accurately forecasting the costs of the projects they campaigned on, extremely, extremely irresponsible in Opposition, and just opposed things for the sake of it, like the regional fuel tax. And the money that is needed to build the infrastructure that is needed in Auckland has to come from somewhere. So instead of it being spread in a very efficient way at a very low cost over a large number of people who are driving around Auckland to get that infrastructure, the infrastructure— Hon Member: How did your bike bridge go? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That was not my project, by the way. The infrastructure will now have to be funded by rates rises or won't happen at all. And everybody in Auckland loses because those projects won't be funded. That's been signalled by the Mayor. And, by the way, the coalition Government is happy to fund the Eastern Busway from the regional fuel tax revenue, so they do kind of understand that road users should contribute to public transport. CAMERON 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 ringfenced 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. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): This legislation should come as absolutely no surprise to anybody because our National Party colleagues and partners campaigned explicitly on it, and we have joined in a coalition agreement with them to deliver this, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are keeping the promises that we collectively have made. Look, let's also be clear: this legislation was always finite. It was set up. It had four years to go. We're just bringing that date forward a little bit. I think this is a very sensible cost of living approach for the good people of Auckland. We've already heard from my colleague Cameron Luxton that the tax is regressive and certainly effects people who have to move around Auckland, particularly those people living in the outskirts of Auckland, who will more likely be those who are less well off. So it's going to benefit them. Let's also look at some numbers here: $780 million has been raised to date, $341 million of that is still left in the kitty at the moment. So even if you didn't raise a cent from now until the 10 years of this scheme coming to its conclusion, in the last six years $73 million a year has been spent. But in the next four years, you would have to spend at $85 million a year to spend all that money—in other words, $12 million more than the Auckland authorities have managed to spend in the last six years. Look, I'm sure that our friends in the Opposition would say that the tax should be kept going, but, look, the reality is: if you look at what's in here, and the purposes for which the tax was intended, you could just about put anything into it—just about put anything into it—and it makes it, effectively, almost just an extra slush fund, if you like—it's a bit of a pejorative word, but a "slush fund"—for the Auckland authorities. I also note that that $341 million—I can see why the Auckland Council is so enthusiastic about it. We had a question earlier today about the cost of borrowing. Well, the Auckland Council with $341 million in the bank is earning, say, 6 percent—they're earning something like $20 million a year in money that they are getting from having that money in the bank. If I might say, the question which was asked about the cost of borrowing, for us as a nation, it is over 2 percent—so more than $2 in every hundred dollars is spent in debt servicing just for our debt that we've run up, and we've run up particularly under that Government. I've also noted that Mayor Brown has said that removing the scheme would cost something like $1.2 billion in possible revenue. What he didn't say is that $600 million of that, roughly speaking, will come from the fuel tax, and he assumed that the other $600 million would come from the National Land Transport Fund. Of course, that's not free money; that means that is money which is not available to anyone else anywhere else in the country. Look, while we know that the good people of Auckland need investment, so does the rest of New Zealand. So it is not free money that was going to come from nowhere. We've also heard from the Hon Julie Anne Genter just now about all the other wonderful projects that will benefit motorists. But I think one of the issues we're having here—and I don't think that motorists are buying into this—is that so much of the fuel tax dollar is now going on to non-roading projects. There is a balance. Public transport benefits motorists. But there is also out of balance, and I think that under the last Government, we got out of balance. Too much of the money which was taken from motorists was spent on things which did not benefit the motorists. I think we lost that sense of balance, and I think we need to get that sense of balance back. Just to finish off, it looks like almost anything could be fitted into the set of things that were under the scheme as it was originally set up. There were 14 different areas of spending which were enunciated here, and the three biggest projects there: one of them—the Eastern Busway—is under way; Penlink, I understand, has been reduced in its scale; and Mill Road was cancelled by that last Government, and it is this Government which is going to bring it back again as part of the roads of national significance. So, in actual fact, while they are decrying the removal of the scheme, they actually took one of the major flagship projects of the scheme and cancelled it, and that is very unfortunate. I'm just going to finish off by saying that when I was in local government, I was never keen on these sort of blanket fuel taxes, but what I was keen on was congestion pricing which sends a clear message to people what they can avoid by changing behaviour, by changing the time that they travel. I think that that is appropriate. What we also know, on that side of the House and on this side of the House, is that road-user charges are coming and that is going to be the way of the future in terms of charging, rather than petrol taxes. I commend this bill to the House. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe, thank you, Mr Speaker. Ka tū au ki te kōrero ki tēnei take, ka kōrero ka tangi ki tēnei whakaaro nui e te Pīka e te katoa. [I stand to address this issue, I speak and convey my sympathies towards this immense matter, Mr speaker, and the House.] So let's talk about our mokopuna in this bill; based on the fact that that's certainly been my previous job to this job, I can speak with confidence but endurance about what this implication will be. So what message does this bill send to our mokopuna? Does it assure our tamariki that we, as the leaders of this country, are doing our best by them? Right now, the answer is a big, fat kāore—or a no—no, we cannot reassure them. The message that this Government sends to our mokopuna and to our tamariki is that their future in this country does not matter, and that a short-term profit or the short-term pacification of a small demographic will be prioritised over mokopuna. Business as usual, it seems. So why can I say that the future of our mokopuna is not currently being prioritised? Well, this Government has prioritised their 100-day plan over whānau, over mokopuna, over people. This Government has failed to carefully plan and to consider the applications of the promises that they have set to the public. This ultimately fails mokopuna. Whether the other side of the House actually knows that and can comprehend what this actually means, in either language—I'm happy to share, when I've got patience for it. This work that has been done to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and to reduce the pressure of living cost crisis is undone with this very repeal. This Government has ridiculed the projects aimed to improve cycle lanes—why do I know? Because I hear them scoffing every few minutes—railway infrastructure, and further improvements to public transport. These projects moved towards transitioning Tāmaki—that's Auckland—from an unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels and instead towards sustainable transport options, which in turn decongest roads, support the longevity of our already existing transport infrastructure, and relieve the pressure we as consumers place on our environment. All right, let me see where I'm going: not only this, we need to also ensure that our people can get from one destination to another safely. Safety upgrades, including the installation of speed bumps, red-light cameras, and lower speed limits in Tāmaki—that's Auckland—all funded by the regional fuel tax, were done in an effort, in fact, surely, done as response to the 50 lives that Auckland roads take each year. That's 50 lives; that's 50 whānau who don't have their loved ones returning home. This Government has labelled these safety projects as wasteful spending. Is it wasteful to invest into the oranga of our people? Speaking to the oranga of our people, how can the Government claim that this bill will aid our people during living cost crisis when the funding for infrastructure that is currently sourced from the regional fuel tax will only be sourced elsewhere? It is now the responsibility of ratepayers and all of those who pay road-user charges to cover the revenue lost to this bill. To conclude, as mentioned by the Minister Simeon Brown himself during the first reading of this bill, 57.8 percent of voters in Auckland voted for the current coalition Government, later in this reading stating, "I don't think that was what Aucklanders thought they were signing up for when the Auckland regional fuel tax was put in place." In response to this, I say: I don't think that was what the 57.8 percent of voters in Auckland were signing up for when the Government's current coalition was put in place. Tēnā tatou katoa. GRANT 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. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): As this bill goes through its first reading, and before we've heard what might have been submissions from people who live in Auckland, we need to consider why we had the regional fuel tax in the first place. As someone on the other side pointed out, it could apply to any council in New Zealand who applied for the capacity to charge a regional fuel tax. So what the regional fuel tax did was set up a mechanism whereby Auckland, in this instance, and other councils could apply to charge a regional fuel tax, and that money was to be used for projects in that region. Now, as it turned out, Auckland was the only regional authority that was able to take advantage of this mechanism, but other city councils were interested in it too. And why were they interested? Because the cost of congestion, the cost of getting us around our cities and towns, the cost of our transport network is increasing in many ways. Now, talk to any Aucklander and they'll be able to tell you and other people in this House what the traffic in Auckland is like. It's particularly appalling at the moment in the midst of March madness, but the congestion on the roads is intense. We have many, many people living and working in Auckland and they end up spending hours in traffic. The reason why that happens is because there aren't other alternatives, it's because we do not have the critical roads we need, and the regional fuel tax was put in place in order to enable Auckland Transport to get under way with getting some of those critical projects built. So what is the problem with removing it? Well, the problem with removing it is not just that it removes the funding that Auckland Transport could have used but it removes the capacity to borrow more money, because it changes the council's debt ceilings. Now, I've heard members on the other side complain that there's some money left in the kitty at the moment. That's left there precisely because these big projects take time to deliver and payments get delivered as various stages in a contract are reached. It's quite straightforward. It's not that no one wanted to spend the money. The money was allocated but it was sitting there, waiting to be spent on the projects as set out in time. And yet we have this critical need for transport funding in Auckland. We have the Mayor of Auckland saying that he wanted the regional fuel tax to continue, and yet on the other side, they are removing the capacity for Auckland to have a regional fuel tax and justifying it on the grounds of the cost of living. But it's going to save—at the most, it will save a household $2.70 a week. Well, that's a big contribution to the cost of living. Where's the substantial change that the other side was promising? Not only that but a few years down the track, they're going to whack the fuel tax back up again by another 22c a litre, and, on top of this, something that just simply cannot be justified by reference to the cost of living, the other side is increasing vehicle registration fees, so another $50 a year—whack!—out of people's back pockets. So whatever the other side thinks might be saved by repealing the regional fuel tax, whatever they think it might save households, well, they're giving it with one hand but taking it away with the other, and taking away not just the short-term monetary savings but the savings that would have been made by having better transport infrastructure in our biggest city. Hon Simeon Brown: Speed bumps. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: And I hear the other side complaining about cycleways. Now, one of the projects that has been lost because this side has taken away the Auckland regional fuel tax is the Great North Road cycleway. See, what the other side fails to do is to recognise that every cyclist on the road is one less car on the road. That is a person who has chosen transport which imposes less costs on other people. So taking this decision in isolation, taking away the Auckland regional fuel tax, pretending it's a cost of living measure, it is bereft of sense. TOM 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. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Government speaker after Government speaker has stood up from Wellington and from the regions and told Aucklanders on this side of the House that we should be grateful for cuts to our public transport and our roading budget; that Aucklanders should be so grateful that Wellington is telling them that they are having cuts to the long-term kind of investment that we need to be the city of the future that we can be. Because I love Auckland and I hear the Hamiltonian member, Tom Rutherford, who has resumed his seat asking me whether Auckland is the city of the future. He was the closest they could get to standing a speaker near to Auckland. So I have listened to his contribution. Tom Rutherford: Point of order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, Tom Rutherford. Tom Rutherford: That's a misrepresentation. I'm not from Hamilton. Hon Simeon Brown: Speaking to the point of order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, the Hon Simeon Brown. Hon Simeon Brown: Well, speaking to the point of order, I actually gave the first speech on this bill and I am an Aucklander. Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Hon James Shaw. Hon James Shaw: Yeah, the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee the other day requested that when giving points of order, that we refer to which clause—which specific Standing Order—the interjection related to. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I haven't called "point of order", so we'll just leave it there. Thank you, Arena Williams. ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Those debating points were well made. They were points about how Auckland is represented in this debate, making points over and over again about how Auckland needs this investment; how Auckland—to be the best city that it can be, to be the kind of city that we want to live in as Aucklanders that we want for our kids who are growing up in Auckland to be—we need long-term investment. This cannot be treated as something of a political football. We need to grow up and resource our biggest city to be a city that is somewhere where everyone wants. Because Auckland is awesome. There are some parts of Auckland that I'm so incredibly proud of. South Auckland is a creative place. Some people see it as "the hood", but that's where all of the good creative juices come from. The worst thing about living in South Auckland is the amount of time that it takes us to get around. That is time between getting up in the morning and going to work where we are not with our kids and our families; that is time in the evening when we are tired and coming home from our jobs that we could otherwise be spending in our homes with the people we love. Transport and its investment isn't something that's esoteric; it's not something that is high-minded and difficult to understand. These transport investments being cut mean that more Aucklanders will spend longer in their cars. It means that kids will have to wait another half-an-hour before dinner with their mum or dad. It means that the kind of quality of life we enjoy as Aucklanders will be diminished. And for what? For $1.80 a week in savings for most Auckland households. That's the advice that was prepared in the department disclosure statement: that this, that has been done in the name of cost of living relief for Aucklanders, will have such a minute effect compared to the long-term investment that our city needs in order for us to live better lives. In fact, it's not even that: that we're also being faced with a 22-cent increase on fuel, straightforwardly, almost in a very quick amount of time, and $50 increases on vehicle registrations. Those things combined mean that essentially this is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. You'd see the regional fuel tax saving Aucklanders perhaps $600 million in revenue that would otherwise go to these specific transport projects, but the $50 increase would then net the Government another $660 million—almost conveniently, the same amount of money—that will then be going into a general pot for general transport projects. This is a real disappointment for the people of Auckland, who needed a ringfence around those projects. We've also heard from the other side of the House that the remaining funds in that pot of money will be spent on projects. Here's where we get back to my point about Wellington telling Auckland that we should be grateful for this, because those are projects which have been ringfenced not by Aucklanders, but they have been saved because of the choices of this Government. Those are not necessarily the priorities of Auckland; they do not necessarily reflect the greatest need in Auckland. They are things like the Eastern Busway, which benefit certain communities. So I think it's a disappointment that we are dealing with this bill in this way, that we won't have time to really drill down into what it means. But I will be using the committee stage to speak specifically to those things which this bill seeks to change in South Auckland, in the region that I call home, and those projects which we need which will be gotten rid of because of these changes—changes which also allow for the prioritisation of Mill Road but also go alongside major cuts to the way that South Aucklanders get around and ultimately lead to South Aucklanders spending more time in their cars and not having transport choices to get out of their cars if they so wanted to. So I do not support this bill, and look forward to discussion at the committee stage. DAN 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. But the issue that came up 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 to much makes the most mistakes. So I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for second reading immediately. Second Reading Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This is a great day for Aucklanders. We're repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax, a tax which the last Government put in place, promising that this tax would transform Auckland, promising that Mill Road in Takanini would be built, and promising the major infrastructure and congestion issues, which I've heard members from across the House talking about—but what has this tax actually done? I see my good colleague from Upper Harbour there. The big, red zero is coming out. It's the big, red zero which featured with the last Government—a big, fat zero. Well, the reality is that it has helped pay for $500,000 speed bumps—slowing people down. They talk about congestion on the other side of this House. Well, what do $500,000 speed bumps, riddled across Auckland—what are they doing to congestion in Auckland? That's what they are doing, and that what this money was being spent on. Red-light cameras—red-light cameras. That's what the regional fuel tax money was being spent on. What about speed management plans? Well, whenever you hear about a speed management plan, you actually know what a speed management actually means. It means slowing everyone down, and the last Government's plans, of course, were to make us crawl around in our cars with people walking in front with red flags to tell us how fast we could go. That's what the regional fuel tax revenue was being spent on. So when the members on this side of the House say that Aucklanders voted for this, it's true: Aucklanders voted in overwhelming numbers to repeal the Auckland regional fuel tax. They were doing it not only because it was a cost of living issue but they knew—they knew—that the money was going to waste. When they drive around the roads, they see the congestion and they feel the potholes, but they see $500,000 speed bumps being built, and Aucklanders are wondering "Why is there always enough money to build $500,000 speed bumps, but not enough asphalt to fill the potholes?" Well, it's because the regional fuel tax was putting the money into the wrong areas. So the National Party, the ACT Party, and the New Zealand First Party are proud to be here, putting this bill through to repeal the Auckland regional fuel tax. This bill does not just—as I outlined—stop the fuel tax but it is about priorities. It is about making sure that the revenues that are collected from people who use our roads are prioritised into what is important to them. So this bill will ring-fence the remaining money, because—I mean, lo and behold, over $340 million of money was unspent. So for six years, Aucklanders have been taxed over $340 million—that is, over two years' worth of the revenues collected from Aucklanders has not even been spent. It's sitting in a bank account, collecting interest. So this bill will require that that remaining funding is put— Tom Rutherford: That's 680 speed bumps. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it scares me, I say to the member for Bay of Plenty. It scares me to think about how many speed bumps that could build. My view, actually, is just to stop the speed bumps, which is what we're doing through the Government policy statement, rather than continuing to spend money on something which isn't a priority. So this will stop the regional fuel tax. It will require the remaining funding to go towards our priority project, which is the City Rail Link, trains and stabling for the City Rail Link—and, by the way, the last Government talked big about public transport, but we started the City Rail Link and we will complete it—the Eastern Busway, which will ensure more transport choices for those in East Auckland, including the Reeves Road flyover; and there are some local roading improvement projects, which are important to Auckland. Also, importantly for the rest of the country—and I heard members opposite saying, "Oh well, why is it that all of these people from outside of Auckland speaking on this bill?" Well, the reality is that we're all elected as members of this House and we take a national interest to the issues facing this country. I put it to members opposite that by repealing this legislation, it means there will not be regional fuel taxes being able to be put in place in other regions around our country as well, which is of course good news for all New Zealanders. This bill is progressing through the House, and I commend it to the House. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to begin this contribution by putting to bed the ridiculous notion of $500,000 speed bumps. I think it's important to do so because it's indicative of the way that that Government over there has approached this whole issue. It seized on one or two issues and then, frankly, pursued a misleading approach to what is going on. Now, those $500,000 speed bumps, alleged, was a blaring headline in the New Zealand Herald—"$500,000 speed bumps.", they said, blaring up. The Minister over there seized upon that number and has repeated it with glee. But the New Zealand Herald had to retract that number. Radio New Zealand, who had repeated it, had to retract that number. There was one speed bump—or one raised crossing, I think—that had to be rebuilt because it encountered serious stormwater problems, and that led to increased costs because of those serious stormwater problems, it incurred those costs. But the speed bumps, and the like, along Meola Road, and the like, cost around about $19,000—cost a much, much smaller amount than has been recited with glee by that side. So the estimated cost of crossings is between $19,000 and $31,000. So I'm going to ask the Minister to treat this with a bit of integrity, to treat this with a bit of being straightforward and to treat this going with what the real numbers are. So instead of reciting a headline that had to be withdrawn, to go to the actual real numbers in this case. Let me go on to another issue. There has been no select committee process here, yet again—yet again, no select committee process. This Government has barrelled through bill after bill after bill after bill with no select committee process, in some kind of frenzied attempt to meet an artificially imposed deadline of 100 days, so that they can trotter around saying, "Oh, we've achieved a whole lot of 'stop, repeal, replace' in a hundred days." Well, good on them! That does mean we haven't had a select committee process for this bill. So what I have chosen to do with the time I have available here is to actually get some evidence from what is happening in our largest city. So in the New Zealand Herald—what's the date today?—well, yesterday, the day before yesterday, Monday: "Extra Buses for March Madness as Auckland's worst choke points revealed". It happens every year in Auckland. In March, the roads are just beyond congested—extraordinary choke points on the road. Now, it happens as the universities go back and the polytechnics go back and as schools go back, so, suddenly, there is just a whole lot more people on the roads. The choke points are reasonably well known. We know it's East Tāmaki to Greenlane in the morning. It's Royal to St Lukes. We know it's Greville Road to Esmonde Road on the Northern Motorway. We know it's Manukau to Māngere northbound on State Highway 20. We know where the choke points are and we know what the problems are. We have some of the same issues, going home in the evenings. Any Aucklander who is trying to get through the city at sort of between 8 and 10 in the morning, or maybe 7 and 10 morning, and trying to get home between, say, 3 and 6 in the evening, we don't have to tell you this. It's northbound on the Southern Motorway from Princess Street to Greenlane. It's State Highway 20 and State Highway 1 merging in the evening—that's a really choked-up point. You know, we might as well call State Highway 20 "a parking lot" at that time of the day. And on it goes, just the known choke points. Now, part of what we are trying to do in Auckland is to get people to change to public transport, to change to active modes of transport so that we have fewer cars on the road. What some of the regional fuel tax was going to do was to help with that, with providing those projects, which would enable people to access other modes of transport so that they didn't have to be on the roads, in their cars. Gone, and the March madness will persist. So that's one story coming from Auckland. I thought this one was fascinating, coming from Devonport. So this was on Radio New Zealand, on 22 February. One of the local ward councillors on the Devonport Takapuna Local Board was really, really worried when she heard the news that the regional fuel tax was going to be removed. Why? It was because the Lake Road project has gone. Now, that's the road that runs down into the peninsula, so from Takapuna down to Devonport, and it is hopelessly crowded; it is always blocked. It makes life quite difficult for people living on that peninsula. You know, Devonport is a really beautiful suburb, and I can understand why people want to live there, but they cannot get in and they cannot get out. Why? It's because Lake Road is choked up. Now, one of the potential improvements that actually hasn't just been put on hold but has been stopped was the improvements to Lake Road that were going to help with the congestion along there. So taking out the regional fuel tax has left people in Devonport stuck with their deeply congested road. Now, I know that people in Devonport, quite overwhelmingly, voted for that Government; I'm beginning to wonder if they regret their choices. And here again, another piece of information, and this is in lieu of the submissions that we might have received, is from Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown. Now, Mr Brown can be fairly cantankerous at times, but he's a pretty straight-dealing sort of man. It's one of the interesting things about dealing with him: he might be grumpy, but, by goodness, you get a straight answer from him. You get some pretty straight language, and it makes him quite easy to deal with, because at least you know where he stands on stuff. He has warned, he says, that, actually, stopping the Auckland fuel tax is going to create huge problems for Auckland. He has been quite outspoken about how he actually wanted that regional fuel tax to continue. He has had to call for a stop on all sorts of transport projects because the regional fuel tax is no longer in place. It's not just Mr Brown; it's other city councillors who have said that this is a real problem. The Transport Committee chair, John Watson, said that a number of significant projects have been left up in the air. Councillor Richard Hills said that the projects that were being funded through the regional fuel tax were needed. So, by removing the regional fuel tax, that Government has created real, ongoing problems for Auckland. The Auckland Mayor has said, you know, "We needed that funding up in Auckland.", and has put a stop to projects that were needed. Well, thank you very much, you know, we're one of the people who are stuck in that. But I want to talk a little bit further, because some of the other submissions that might have come in—had there only been submissions!—might have got to some of the information that was revealed in this disclosure statement. We've already traversed a little bit of the information that was there about the actual impact on people's back pockets, which we know is going to be about $2.70 a week per household—big deal! But there are going to be a couple of problems. One is that, in theory, the price of fuel is going to drop by 10c a litre. Now, no matter that it varies by more than that across the city a lot, even on a single day, but driving from the Gull station in Titirangi down to the Mobil station in New Lynn can see a 10c increase in the price of petrol just because of the way that pricing operates. But one of the things about the way those prices fluctuate means it is going to be very hard to be sure that that 10c a litre is actually going to be passed on to consumers. I haven't heard a word yet from the other side of the House as to how they are going to ensure that the actual benefit of that cut is going to be passed on to the consumers, instead of just quietly absorbed by the fuel companies. So I'd like to hear from that, and I'll be asking the Minister about it later on in the committee of the whole House stage of the bill. But let me just read the last paragraph of the disclosure statement that was prepared by the Minister's own officials—the last paragraph. It says: "Removing the Regional Fuel Tax is unlikely to have a substantive impact on households and this change would need to be made alongside other interventions in order to help reduce the cost of living on Aucklanders." What are the other interventions that they put in place in this space? Well, they're going to whack up the cost of registration by $50. An own goal, Minister, you are making the wrong decision. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): As I said in my first contribution on this bill, the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, I think that it's really a shame that the current coalition Government took such an antagonistic approach to being in Opposition and developed such knee-jerk policies and didn't really do the work to figure out how they would raise enough revenue to pay for the projects they're promising. While, on the one hand, it's clear they did campaign on cancelling the regional fuel tax, what was never clear was how was the additional revenue going to be found to pay for the projects that need to be built? And, clearly, the regional fuel tax was a tool given to Auckland so that it didn't have to entirely rely on rates to pay for transport infrastructure. And it's a smart, low-administrative-cost way of raising revenue that, frankly, consumers don't really notice, because of the competitive nature of the market of petrol stations in Auckland. Despite the regional fuel tax existing in Auckland, the cheapest petrol in the country can be found in Auckland regularly. So it's not the case that this was imposing some big additional cost that consumers are going to notice when it's gone. But what people are going to notice is that projects they were expecting to be built, like the Lake Road upgrade in Devonport and a whole lot of other ones, are no longer going to happen. And if they are going to make a contribution to transport infrastructure, it's going to have to come from rates. And Wayne Brown, the mayor, has been very clear about this. Cutting the regional fuel tax at this time means either a rates rise or a cut in projects. Now the Minister has just released a Government policy statement on transport in which he has sort of claimed that the decisions made by this Government are going to lead to a more efficient and effective transport system and that they're concerned with productivity and economic growth. But every action they're taking is doing the exact opposite. I think, fundamentally, there's a real confusion—specifically for the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown—about why everyone drives everywhere in Auckland. He seems to think people are driving cars all over Auckland because they want to and are being stuck in traffic because they want to, and what he doesn't realise is that decades of Government and local government decisions have made it impossible for them to get anywhere without a car. Actually, those Government decisions have forced huge costs on to households, because it's very costly to own and run a car, and then lots of land is needed to park the car—everywhere you need to go. And, now, New Zealand has actually just surpassed the US for highest car-ownership rate in the world. That's not a success story for New Zealand, because we import all of our cars and all of the fuel to run them. So all of our dairy exports do not cover the cost of the private vehicles that we import and the fuel that we need to use to run them. Those capital assets—they are barely used. The average private vehicle is sitting parked 96 percent of the day, taking up valuable urban land in our cities. Now, when I say all of this, the Minister and the people opposite come back with "Julie Anne Genter just hates cars. She just hates roads. She just hates cars." Guys, that's not what I'm saying. Cars can be very practical, useful tools, but it's not practical for every person in New Zealand to have to have their own car, which they use four hours a day or less and that they have to keep parked somewhere and they all try to use at the same time of day in the morning and the night in urban areas. That doesn't work. Do you understand—Madam Speaker, not you, but do they understand? Why do they say this? Why do they say this when I say, "This is not the most cost-effective way to solve our country's transport problems, and there are better ways that get better outcomes."? Why do they say, "Why do you hate roads?" Why do they say that? I think that must be projection, and on the part of the Minister, he actually does hate people who walk and ride bikes, because why else would he have such a policy that is trying to stop every safe evidence-based pedestrian crossing in front of every school that might have been proposed. Why is he doing that? I mean, that's shocking. Why is he saying that no money from the State highway activity class could ever be used for a multimodal transport— Cameron Luxton: Point of order. This is my first time raising a point of order, and taking note of what the previous Speaker had said—that we must quote one—I would just say Standing Order 121: "Personal reflections. A member may not [impute improper motives] against a member", and I feel like we just heard that. So as much as I'm enjoying listening to the speaker, I would hope that she'd keep her comments to not reflections. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I will just get some advice on that. Yes, the member did refer to an opinion about the Minister's point of view on something. It was borderline, but I don't believe it did breach Standing Orders. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: To be honest, I would never say that, except that people consistently say it about me when I say this is not the most cost-effective way to solve your problem. And so I said, "If they're saying that about me, what does it say about their thoughts and their attitudes and beliefs?", because there is not— Todd Stephenson: You said the Minister hates people. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, maybe it was projection, because, yeah—maybe it's projection on their part. But the point is that there is an opportunity that New Zealand has to get much better outcomes from transport spending, and if we took a logical evidence-based approach, then we would be investing in things that move more people and goods at lower cost. That is things like multimodal integrated transport projects, that is busways, and public transport to new greenfields housing areas on the outskirts of Auckland that is making it possible for people to get from one neighbourhood on one side of a State highway and the other side of the State highway walking and cycling, because some people live on one side of a State highway and the school that their kids go to is on the other side. If they aren't able to take an overbridge or have a walking and cycling path, then they have to get in their car and drive the kilometer or whatever to get there. And if they have to get in their car and drive at peak time, that's adding more congestion to the network. So the whole rationale of spending money on public transport and walking and cycling from the transport budget is because it benefits everyone. It benefits everyone, and that includes the people who are driving the cars on the road. For whatever reason that they have to do that, that's fine, but the point is that they benefit more from the busway or from the pedestrian connection than they do from a few kilometres of extra lane of motorway, because that is very quickly filled up with more cars when people have no choice but to drive. And, in some ways, the fact that the Minister recognises the value of public transport to road users is reflected in this bill, because in this bill, the Government is stipulating that the remaining funds that exist from the Auckland regional fuel tax should go towards the Eastern Busway. It is a project that that Government, the National Party, campaigned on. I think it's quite specifically beneficial to the Minister's electorate. He's brought up over and over again that his constituents will benefit from the Eastern Busway. And, in this case, he's saying it's OK to use revenue from the regional fuel tax, revenue from Aucklanders who've paid it from driving their cars, on a bus way when it's of significance to the party who campaigned on it. So there's no actual rule here that says road users shouldn't pay for busways and bike lanes, because we know they benefit from it. It's just that the Government will use whatever argument supports the things they want to do for the reasons they want to do it. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be because it's going to benefit all New Zealanders and all of Auckland, because people in some parts of Auckland are going to be seriously disadvantaged by this repeal of the regional fuel tax, because it means that there won't be the money there to build the projects that they were relying on, whether they were public transport or walking and cycling or roading projects. The revenue won't be there to pay for it, other than through rates. And we know local government needs more revenue tools, and congestion pricing and direct road-user charging is going to take years to get up. So, in the interim, there's this gap, there's this absence that has to be made up with other revenue. So that's why the Green Party's not supporting this. But as ever, what I would really love—and I will continue to do this; I've been doing this for 12.5 years in this House, and I was doing it for three years before that—is to try to make the case that actually transport should not be a political football. It's not a tribal battle between people who happen to use a bike some days and people who happen to use a car. The choices that people have to them, that they're able to make about how to get around, are fundamentally shaped by decisions made in this House by the executive in their Government policy statement and by local government. But the executive significantly influences what local government can do. So let's not pretend that we're giving people choice simply by building more roads. I mean, that's not what's happening. Successive Governments have underfunded public transport. They've pushed development out to the fringes where there's no other alternatives, and in order to give people effective choices, we need to significantly invest much, much more in public transport, walking, and cycling. To mend the severance that's been caused by urban motorways, we need to allow more density in our cities, and that, ironically, is the thing that's going to deliver the most for the people who are trying to use private vehicles on the roads we currently have. CAMERON 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. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): My turn. I'm pleased again to support this bill. Look, I'm going to start off by responding to a couple of comments that were made by the Hon Julie Anne Genter. She said that transport shouldn't be a political football. I would agree with her, because I would say that the more things that we can get long-term consensus on in the community and across the political divide, the better, especially on things like transport, which, often, you're putting in transport infrastructure; it will be there for 100, 200, 300 years and will have an effect across that long period of time. The reality is, though, we are having a vigorous debate about this. I'm just going to pick up on some of the issues which have been raised, just to show that I've been listening to what the Opposition has been saying, some of the issues which they raised. The Hon Deborah Russell talked about any council being able to apply for a fuel tax, and, of course, that is going to go under this legislation. However, my recollection was that Jacinda Ardern, as Prime Minister, actually ruled out any more regional fuel taxes, and she did, indeed, do that. I've got a quote from a news article here: "Jacinda Ardern has ruled out any more regional fuel taxes under her leadership." I accept that she's obviously not the leader anymore, but it was clear and emphatic, ruling that out. "I can give[a] guarantee to this House and … consumers that there will be no other regional fuel taxes while I'm Prime Minister." She also said—which was interesting because of this concept of saying, "Well, actually, there could be other parts of the country which would like to have a regional fuel tax." She also said, "Well, some regions are desperate for investment," said Ms Ardern, "but we've ruled it out."—but we've ruled it out. So these other parts of the country which were going to benefit from the thing which had gone on in Auckland—and I can remember, because I was mayor at the time, and, actually, my predecessor also came and asked the Hon Phil Twyford, who I see over here, and he's nodding. He said, "Well, on the basis of that ruling out"—I presume that's what it was—"no, Wellington, you cannot have a regional fuel tax either." In fact, what I wanted was to say, "I would like you to at least, say, can we get the congestion price legislation under way."—nodding over there again. The answer was no. But after you got through the 2020 election, the answer was, "Yeah, well, maybe, maybe, maybe." So we felt like we were making some progress. But I think the reality was that from our perspective, there was value in getting the right mechanism there. I accept that the congestion pricing is going to take a fair bit of time to get to, but that is the right mechanism, because it changes people's behaviour as well. It is not simply a blunt tool which effects everybody. We've heard that issue about being regressive, and the reality is, many people are going to need to use their car. Auckland's issue is not just about the transport system, it's about its form. It's such a big city that to get around it, for many people, the car is the only option. Public transport is not going to be viable for many, many people to use, and so the car is going to be necessary. For those people, what this is is regressive and it affects them significantly, and that's why we're pleased to stand to repeal this. We also heard that there's going to be a whole lot of projects which will now be cancelled. They won't be cancelled; Auckland can still put them up into the National Land Transport Programme, and if they are good projects, they will get through that process. Now, sometimes we over-embellish things in this House, but the reality is we're talking about something like— Grant McCallum: Really? ANDY FOSTER: Really? Yes, sometimes things get over-embellished. But we're talking here about $130-odd million a year. The National Land Transport Fund from fuel taxes, etc., $4.5 billion a year. Auckland would usually get roughly a third of that—$1.5 billion a year. So we're talking about 8 percent or so of the money which would be, effectively, going to Auckland. So, yes, it will have an impact; the issue is how much impact. Then, of course, the issue is does that put that little bit of extra pressure on, saying that you've got to get better quality projects. And, look, we've heard about $500,000 speed humps and pedestrian crossings. That's not great. We've heard about the cost of putting those sort of things in, and we've got to have a look at that, the cost of all the health and safety issues around those. But if we can try and make sure that we get better quality investment, I think that that will be a very, very good thing. We've also heard some accusations about this Government whacking up the fuel tax. What we haven't heard from the other side of the House is that it's three years before any of that happens at all. We also haven't heard the recognition that—in fact, I think it was both a National and a Labour-led Government, that four cents a litre regularly went on the petrol tax. So, in fact, if you said four cents a litre over six years, you'd be 24 cents a litre anyway, so there's probably not a lot between the two sides there. We've also heard an accusation about giving with one hand and taking away with the other, about registration rising. I don't think that the cost of registering a vehicle has gone up since 1994— Tom Rutherford: Before I was born. ANDY FOSTER: Before Tom was born. What I would say to people right around the Chamber is that so often a price is set and it's not adjusted—these one-off prices—and Labour-led Governments are equally guilty of that. I know that, because I know, having been in local government, that we would regularly come to Government and say, "Hey, you haven't allowed this price to go up for 20, 30 years. It's now completely out of whack. Can you do that?" We should never be put in that position. We should never be imposing that. A little bit of trust between central government and other people will go a very, very long way. So I think those are most of the things that I wish to say, other than to say a really, really important thing: putting cycleways in, putting busways and public transport improvements in, can benefit motorists, but we have to get the balance right, and so often we are not taking motorists with us—we are not taking motorists with us. In fact, some of those projects have a significant negative impact on motorists. I look around the city that I live in—I look around the city that I live in—and I know that people have not been taken on that journey at all, and that they see a real, negative impact on people who want to get about and do their business and they just happen to want to be able to use a car and they are not happy with that. I am delighted to commend this bill to the House. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Te Pāti Māori do not support the Government's transport agenda. Let's start, firstly, by saying that this is not about the cost of living. We've already heard from this Government about their anti-beneficiary, anti - wage earner policies, where they want to sanction beneficiaries and cut the yearly increase for minimum wage. So let's not have a cost of living discussion with this policy. Our policy is for free public transport that is accessible and efficient. This could be implemented immediately with tamariki, students, and community service card holders, and be made free for everyone within five years. Our policy is to ensure that urban planning and infrastructure allows for safe cycling and walking paths, and that cheap and accessible public and active transport is also prioritised regional and rural Aotearoa and not just in our major cities. That is the whakaaro behind our position today. This Government campaigned to build 15 new roads and has pledged $500 million to fix potholes. The one pothole they cannot fix, however, is the $24 billion pothole in their Budget. It's the road users that are going to have to be paying for their reckless policies. On top of road-user charges, they are putting up regos by $50. That money will go towards funding 50,000 roadside drug tests, which they will be making back by increasing fines. They are cutting cycleway and walkway projects, creating more congestion on the roads and then increasing congestion charges at peak hour traffic. How many people here have sat in peak hour traffic in Tāmaki-makau-rau? It's a nightmare. This Government is taking the option away from people to use reliable public transport, forcing them to sit in traffic and then pay for it, because they cannot plan more than three years ahead. By disincentivising electric vehicles while at the same time cutting public transport, this Government is fuelling climate change. We're in urgency, so just a message from some of our community members across Tāmaki-makau-rau who want to be able to share their thinking. The first message I got today was, "Takutai, Aucklanders don't feel confident in this Government." Shanan Halbert: They're confused. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP: They are confused—exactly—they are confused. But they don't feel confident with this Government. Here's the thing: this Government wants to cancel projects. However, these projects are already under way. They've still got to go ahead. We've still got to find the money for them. They can't just stop. One of the projects that was mentioned was—what's going to happen to the safety for our school kids that are needing the flashing lights, the traffic lights, to keep those tamariki safe when they're going to school. That's one of those projects. The community are asking: what happens? Does that mean it doesn't go ahead now, and then our kids are unsafe on the roads when they go to school, where they should be at their safest? Have you seen the roads down Mahia Road in Manurewa? My gosh, they are dangerous. Our kids need safe roads to cross when they're going to schools. Even outside Manurewa Marae, it's a main road along there. Reducing the speed of traffic along that main road of Finlayson doesn't help, it needs the flashing lights to get people safe across the roads. This bill also creates another debate: it's not just about transport, who's going to be responsible for the drainage after the flooding? Who's going to be responsible for the cesspits caused in Parnell? It's all interrelated: infrastructure and transport. This is what Aucklanders are asking. So I'm here to say that Te Pāti Māori, on behalf of our whānau in Tāmaki-makau-rau, do not support this bill. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Everybody should have the right to fully participate in their communities, and transport options play a huge part of that. In order to ensure that people can actually get around their towns and cities they need to have options around how they do that, not just being locked into cars being one of the options that they have. And on top of that, with infrastructure that doesn't allow for things like walking and cycling and for our kids to safely be able to go to things like school. What we're seeing right now is a repeal that will cut the revenue-gathering tool that the Government had to be able to fund transport projects, and the Government not proposing an alternative. For all the talk around the Government still being committed to public transport, the reality is that what we're experiencing is effectively a cut in real funding when it comes to public transport projects, effectively locking people, particularly in big urban centres, to only being able to get around with cars. What is worse is that by cutting revenue streams—that would have enabled greater investment in public transport—and locking in polluting infrastructure, carbon intensive infrastructure, and locking people into cars, what we are also doing is leaving our communities more prone to severe weather events like the ones that Auckland experienced last year, effectively putting more of our communities at risk of climate change. This repeal needs to be put in the broader context of the Government's infrastructure plans. It's been portrayed as a cost of living measure. But the reality is, and it's interesting because if I take the words of another Minister in a different debate, who when we talked about benefits the Minister talked at the time about how no single bill can be taken in isolation. She was talking about a bill that would increase child poverty. And then we see this bill that is being pitched as a cost of living measure when actually the cost of living benefits for our communities of this specific repeal are minimal. In the broader context of a Government that is lowering benefit increases, attacking workers' wages, and doing nothing to genuinely alleviate the high costs of housing. At the same time, this bill therefore has to be put into the context of a Government that is doing nothing to alleviate the pressures that people face when it comes to the cost of taking public transport. So all that this bill is doing is cutting a key revenue-gathering tool for infrastructure projects—ideally there should be public transport infrastructure projects—and this Government is proposing no alternatives. We could be looking at general taxation policy to gather revenue for transport infrastructure projects. We could be looking at congestion pricing. And yet this Government isn't brave enough to put progressive alternatives to commit funding for public transport infrastructure. Anyone who lives in places like Auckland will know how far behind we are when it comes to investing in public transport infrastructure. And rather than playing political football around how slow successive Governments have been at delivering public transport infrastructure, we should have a Government that is brave enough to look at the evidence, the science, and actually the feedback from our communities who are very clear that they want options to get around. People in our schools and kids have been proactive at galvanising and running campaigns around safe walking and cycling infrastructure so they can get to school. The repeal of the regional fuel tax leaves a gap when it comes to the ability to resource those projects, on top of a Minister that has actually waged a war on that safe infrastructure that would have enabled people to have those options. So the Green Party does not support the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill for those reasons. The Minister could have been clear about what alternative revenue gathering tools he was going to propose when he introduced that bill. We don't have that. We just have a bill that has been led by a rhetoric that wasn't grounded on evidence that was pushed through the campaign, and also a bill that doesn't allow for the people who are going to be most affected by infrastructure decisions to actually give feedback on this bill. So by having bill in urgency we're preventing the campaigners—the young people who've been pushing for safe walking and cycling and infrastructure, on top of better public transport—from giving their thoughts on actually what should therefore replace this repeal if we're going to have this being taken away from the Government's ability to resource transport projects. We call on the Government to genuinely commit to public transport infrastructure rather than to lock us into climate change policies. GRANT 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, and I commend this bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I want to start by talking about some of the things that my colleagues have talked about today, about the fear they have of the war that's being waged in this situation: I would have thought that the issue of transport and proper funding of transport was almost apolitical because it affects our entire community. I picked up an email recently from one of the principals in a school in my area, and it's a school that's been subject to quite a lot of noise about what the Minister calls speed bumps, but they're actually raised crossings. So they stand above the road and they are crossings that go— Hon Simeon Brown: They're speed bumps. HELEN WHITE: The Minister's laughing at this point, but I'm not sure he'll be laughing once he's heard the email that came in. It came in about the concern of the principal about the safety of children at his school, and he starts talking about speeds in the area, and how necessary they are because the children are walking to school. But he also talks about the impact of a lack of safety, and he says, "I'm not sure if anyone in this email list"—and he sent it to Melissa Lee and he sent it to myself and he sent it to Auckland Transport—"has attended the funeral of a child who has died as a result of being hit by a car. I have. It was in my time in"—and I'm going to leave the suburb out so it doesn't affect people—"and the student was hit by a car on a 50-kilometre road while riding a bike. The car wasn't speeding, but it killed him. I vividly remember the call from my principal. I remember the immense grief of knowing that we would not see his joyous, smiling face at school again. I remember the funeral. I remember the sobbing. I remember consoling his teacher as we stood at the open casket. I do not want to attend another funeral like this." Now, I don't usually consider myself in this House to be a person who talks melodrama. But I think it's worth remembering that when taxes like this are cut and there is a shortfall and the mayor has much pressure on him to keep down the rates, the results are likely to be that things go. Things that need to be there go, and when the Minister talks about speed bumps costing $500,000—knowing that that was retracted because it's been in the media that it wasn't correct—there is a politicisation of an issue and a clouding of an issue that we surely have to see with much clearer vision than that. If the life of a child is at stake, we are going to have to slow down the cars, and we're going to have to do it by raised crossings. On the road that this principal's talking about—I know that area. It's an area with very, very high walking and cycling as it is, so it's even more necessary because of the vulnerability of those people. It's absolutely necessary. We take that seriously. I take the point that's been made that there are other tools. There are things like congestion charging. All for looking at those things. I was on that select committee, I looked at that, I was concerned and sceptical about it because it does depend on what the impact is on people who are living a long way away, who tend to be the poorer people, and they have to come to their jobs. But I can see the point in exploring those tools and doing it together. But what I don't like is when the Minister politicises an issue that should never have been political. What we have here is something that affects the very hearts of our communities. We must—must—keep funding for these kinds of projects. Instead, the Minister has ring-fenced certain projects. It has been pointed out he's ring-fenced a project in his area that affects the people in his area. He has noticed the impact of busways in that area. But he has not ring-fenced the area of mine; he has not said that in the Mount Albert area we're going to give the same sort of priority to busways and— Hon Simeon Brown: Does the train go through? HELEN WHITE: Actually, the trains that are here—there are bits that are cut out of the new train services, Minister. So the comment that he's just made across the House about whether it affects the trains is, yes, we get some of that early stuff, but we don't get a lot of the enhancement in the trains, and I'll be asking about that in the committee stage so we better get ready. So what I am saying here is that these are priorities, but it's not all I want to say here. It is not just about safety, it's also about the cost to Auckland in terms of its wealth. Because I have the portfolio of small business and I have manufacturing, and have sat in the traffic and waited and wondered how much it's costing Auckland to be this congested. And it is actually costing a lot, and we know now that if we can get people out of their cars—particularly in the inner city suburbs, because they can walk and they can cycle and e-bikes make that possible—if we can encourage them out, and if we can have good busways, then it frees up the capacity for the roads to be used in a productive way. So I am concerned about the price that Aucklanders will pay in terms of productivity because of this retroactive step of taking this away. I actually share the concerns of the mayor. This is money that was ring-fenced for Auckland, and it is an alternative to rates rises, and, instead, the Minister has taken away the specific ring-fenced tax to Auckland where Aucklanders pay for Auckland infrastructure, and instead he's bringing in another tax which is actually through the driver's licence system and that goes to the whole of the country. How fair is that? So Auckland loses its specific commitment and its specific build when it is so necessary, and it loses it to the whole country. I note that we had a lot of people jump up on the other side and speak for their whole 30 seconds and they haven't been from Auckland; we've had very few Aucklanders stand up on this one because it affects their constituents. It affects the constituents in Devonport and it affects my constituents—it affects them. This is not a future-forward piece of legislation for Auckland. This is going to hurt Aucklanders, and they're going to pay in another way through the driver's licence, a different form of tax, and they're not going to pay for things that they know are building a better Auckland for them. That's not going to happen and so I am very concerned to see that. I also just want to tell them something that's a bit of bad news, which is that if they expect to see the fuel come down 10c a litre every time they go to the pump, unfortunately that's very unlikely to happen. When I look at the fuel prices that have been in the north and I compare them to the fuel prices once you've hit the area where the tax applies, you can't see that that's going to be a transparent drop in the price. It's very unlikely. It's extremely difficult to see where that's coming from because Auckland often has lower fuel prices. So there is no correlation. It's been pointed out by a few members, and, again, we'll be asking in the committee stage about this: what is the mechanism that means we're going to see that flow through to the ordinary Aucklander? When this law comes in, how are we going to make sure that it actually gets passed on to Aucklanders? Because I have some serious concerns about that. I'd like to just talk finally about this issue—about seeing this as a cost of living issue—because I live in the suburb, and I think about what would cost more for the people in that suburb of Mount Albert. I think about the issue of things like bus fares and how those affect our poorest people. So when we move away from things like half-price bus fares and cheaper bus fares and streamlined bus services, who do we hurt? Which Aucklanders are most affected by that? It's a simple question. The people who are most affected are the ones who've got lots of kids or they live a long way out. They're the ones who miss out here, and those are the Aucklanders that I believe we all want to see get a step up. It's not the people with the Range Rovers—it's not the people with the Range Rovers living in Freemans Bay. Drives me nuts that I can't ever find a park because I can't squeeze past the car without being very frightened of actually scratching it— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. TOM 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. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Miles Anderson looked very, very uncomfortable when that was spoken of from that side of the House, because the reality is that he's a regional MP from the South Island, and his constituents are going to suffer from this stupid piece of legislation. We have a bunch of transport geniuses on the other side of the House here! When they last came into Government in 2008-2009, one of the first things they did in 2010, they increased the weight of trucks from 44 to 53 tonnes. Oh, this was going to bring efficiency, we were told. And then the next thing they did in 2014 was change the system of funding, it was effectively called "sweat the assets". This was designed to drive efficiency in the way that we funded our roading maintenance and upgrades. The combination of that, quite frankly, as every regional and rural MP knows, has been the destruction of our roads since then. We have, as a country, seen the deficiencies in Auckland, because they can't help themselves, can't look after themselves through many, many years of local government incompetency—I'll say that. They have not invested properly in their infrastructure. And we as the taxpayers across the country have invested billions of dollars in Auckland's infrastructure. And we last in Government said, "We'll put a little bit of tax on petrol, and you can invest in that transport infrastructure that's clearly deficient." And the last National Government took it off, and we put it back on. And now this coalition Government's going to take it off. And the billions of dollars of deficits that this will leave will come from regional and provincial road funding, absolutely. It will come from safety investments that save lives across our country: $5 million is the estimated cost of every single fatal accident in our country, $900,000 for every serious accident in our country. Wouldn't we be better to put that money up front? And, if so, where should it come from? Well, I know that in my home town of Westport, actually, until we intervened to bring in Gull and Nelson Petroleum Distributors into the South Island, we were paying a huge amount—a lot. It was about 30c or 40c more per litre than people in Auckland. So even with the regional fuel tax, people were paying less for fuel in Auckland than many parts of our country. Grant McCallum: What other parts? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Many parts. Well, let's go and have a look, as I did just before. So they vary between $2.80, roughly, in Auckland; $2.90 in the West Coast; in Waikato, $2.70. There's about a 20c to 25c variation across the country. So the question is, what's the harm in investing in your future through a regional fuel tax? What's the harm in investing in safety and saving lives in your community? What is the harm? Can't answer it. Shanan Halbert: Don't care. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Don't care. What I'm saying is what we did with the implementation of this tax was actually enable Auckland to invest in its future and its future infrastructure. I think, for the most part, people didn't notice. Saving cost of living—what a joke. It's been pointed out by my colleagues, it's insignificant across the scheme of things. And in the end, the accidents, the congestion, and all of the other chaos that will come from the lack of investment will cost a whole lot more than being upfront, raising some revenue, and investing it in the things that Auckland desperately needs. This is one more of those stupid pieces of legislation being passed through this House in urgency, where people don't get a chance to scrutinise it, don't get a chance to put up the counterargument and, indeed, I'd say to you, will be reversed in the future—will be reversed. Do you know why? Because Auckland and most Aucklanders—not the Remuera crew, not the crew that sit over there, the privileged, the people who think they're entitled to a tax cut, entitled to pay less for their fuel. Well, do you know what I suggest to you, and Mr Anderson will know, the hardworking people in Southland and Waikato and in Northland, who generate the revenue for our country, they're entitled to a fair go as well. This regional fuel tax was an investment by Aucklanders in Auckland. It's been taken away, and that investment will come from the regional and provincial areas of our country that earn the money and that should have the same price and the same investment as Auckland. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure 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. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is an important discussion this evening for people that live in Tāmaki-makau-rau / Auckland, because what we all know is that as our city grows to a population of 2 million people by 2030—2 million people by 2030—the way we feel now in congestion compared to the way we feel in 2030, and we're still in congestion, we're not moving as a city. Our GDP and contribution to our economy is severely impacted by the decision that we make today. When we talk to Aucklanders, when we talk to any family that is suffering under the cost of living challenges that we experience at the moment, and we talk about tax—and today we're talking about the regional fuel tax—and we say, "Do you want to pay a tax?", everyone says no, right? We don't want to pay a tax if we don't have to. At the same time, Aucklanders feel frustrated at the deep congestion that our city faces. We have discussed this and debated this as a Transport and Infrastructure Committee in the last term. We talked about—agreed on some of—the tools that actually will change the way we get around New Zealand's largest city of Tāmaki-makau-rau, what could be used. But while National did campaign on repealing the regional fuel tax, the truth is that under the now National-led Government, Aucklanders will be paying more, and they have had the promise of cost of living relief pulled out from under them. That is the reality. If Aucklanders tonight feel confused—because if I thought about this last week compared to this week, I'm quite confused, because, actually, they have absolutely hoodwinked Aucklanders. They've pulled the rug out from under them. They've made them believe in an election that they're going to save on average $2 more a week or $100 a year. But this Minister of Transport is one of the most cynical Ministers ever, who is trying to be seen to be giving with one hand but at the same time is actually taking with the other. He is adding costs to Aucklanders when he promised cost of living relief. Every member of Parliament from Auckland that sits across that side of the House tonight, you should hang your head in shame, because while you campaigned on one thing, actually, this week you have done another. Because of them, Aucklanders are facing a drivers' tax, adding a cost of $50 to Auckland families to register their car per year. Do the maths yourself: where is the cost of living relief? In addition to that, they're adding 12c a litre to petrol. So when I talk about that they've hoodwinked Aucklanders, that is the actual case. They are giving with one hand and they're taking—ripping off Aucklanders—with the other. That's on top of the proposed 23 percent increase to Auckland water rates, because they repealed the one thing that was the game-changer for Aucklanders when it comes to water infrastructure. National's transport projects are estimated to cost twice the amount that they initially said. That's a fiscal hole of $24 billion—$24 billion. The reality of people living in Auckland, actually, is when you see the plans, they aren't there. What the Minister has done with this piece of legislation is pulled the rug out from under Mayor Wayne Brown and his ability to deal with critical transport infrastructure for our city. Where we look for a progressive relationship between central government and local government, this particular bill obstructs that relationship from working. What it says, actually, what it does, is it takes away the localism that our city needs, that, actually, the National Government campaigned on. Auckland Council needs to be fit for purpose, and yes, I agree there is work to be done around the future of Auckland Transport, but what we can't do is have a big, three-headed taniwha Government making decisions in isolation. We need a view across Auckland that doesn't have one single view about investing in roads; it needs to invest in our public transport—another thing that has been taken away from Aucklanders. What I've heard this evening I'm quite saddened by and disappointed. When people take the mickey out of the cost to pedestrian crossings and put figures out there that they know aren't accurate, and in our local community—and the member of Northcote talked about pedestrian crossings. The question for him is: which pedestrian crossing or transport project would he take away, because this regional fuel tax has invested in our community, and if he doesn't know that, then he probably needs to do his research. But the important part is that we actually want to acknowledge we want people to get around efficiently, we want to get out of congestion, we want them to be safe, we want a progressive city that is as productive as it possibly can be. While, actually, we talk about what Aucklanders want, they are struggling with the cost of living, but what they said when Auckland Council commissioned a poll: 44 percent of Aucklanders actually, based on this discussion, wanted to keep the regional fuel tax; 26 percent were in favour of cancelling the regional fuel tax projects—that's actually not that many. So we know a global city that has a transport infrastructure deficit decades in the making needs investment. But I come back to the point: what this Government campaigned on and what they're delivering this week does not provide the cost of living relief that Aucklanders were promised. It simply tries to give with one hand, it takes with the other, and it actually doesn't address the issue at hand. It doesn't invest in critical transport infrastructure projects. It doesn't build the relationship with Auckland Council. And there's a really good question: what is the relationship between Minister Simeon Brown and the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown? Hon Simeon Brown: Very positive. SHANAN HALBERT: Where does that leave things? I wouldn't be so confident, Minister. But this Government will ram through this House, as it has done with 16 out of 17 bills in the last few weeks. It's made decisions, it's bypassed the parliamentary process. They cry democracy, but when they're in power, actually, it doesn't mean nothing. They've impacted on Māori, they've taken away health sovereignty, and here today they've taken the rights of Aucklanders to have better transport infrastructure that they damn well deserve. Hon Member: Stick to the bill. SHANAN HALBERT: Every member of Parliament—this is absolutely in the bill—in this House should be reading this bill thinking "I'm going to turn back up to my community and I need to front up and explain how we're resolving congestion.", because the plan that the Minister presented this week doesn't provide a solution to addressing Auckland's critical problem, which is congestion. Actually, Auckland is the region that simply misses out in that plan. It says to Auckland Council, "I'm going to put you on the side. You find your own funding that's going to increase rates to Aucklanders, just like it has done with water rates." So it comes back to this Government and their absolutely false promise in the election. You haven't provided cost of living relief to Aucklanders, and this piece of legislation I absolutely do not support. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the bill. Members, the time has come for the dinner break. We will suspend the House until 7.30. Hon Members: Seven. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, 7 o'clock—7 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m.