Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well that was quite a revisionist approach from the Government on their bill. There must be another marked-up copy of the legislation here because hearing Mr Wood talk it seems like he's added some new amendments in the second reading speech that aren't there in the report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of them he says—when he's contrasting with the road-user charge that Mr Carter suggested—is that this legislation will not see people around New Zealand faced with extra fuel taxes and not with taxes that'll pay for Auckland roading and other transport infrastructure. Well that's patently wrong unless he has actually amended the bill further. We'll get to that.I'd like to note Shane Jones made a comment in his contribution. He said This Government is not Scrooge-like." Actually I can agree with that—they're not. They're extremely fast and loose when it comes to spending other people's money. They're taxing like you wouldn't believe at a rate of new taxes and a level of new taxes I don't think we've seen for an awful long time and they're very loose with where that money's going. This regional fuel tax is a good case in point because already other regions are looking to get their hands on that money and they're looking to spend it on very poorly economically performing proposals such as in Wellington.I sat on the select committee for part of the evidence hearing for this bill and I was fortunate to be there when the Greater Wellington Regional Council came to make their submission. So I asked the chair of that regional council "Are you intending to apply for a regional fuel tax?" In a heartbeat he said yes—in a heartbeat. We've seen reports since then that also Christchurch Hamilton Tauranga—apparently the chair of Local Government New Zealand wants all councils to be able to get a piece of this. So this is not just a regional fuel tax to help with Auckland transport needs. This is an additional tax on hard-working Kiwis probably across most if not all of New Zealand that will then be spent on transport whims of those regions—Hon Julie Anne Genter: Ha ha!BRETT HUDSON: —many of which do not make good sound sense. Wellington is a really good example—as Ms Genter laughs. Wellington's a really good example. You see Wellington regional councillors have been all excited since this legislation was introduced as have many of the city councillors because they see this as a way for them to fund their dream of light rail in Wellington from the city to the airport. Now the estimates that have been made on that project have the cost at approximately $950 million and the total benefits over the lifetime of that project at $93 million. So remarkably these people want to use levers like this regional fuel tax to make an "investment" where it would actually be economically more sensible to have a bonfire of $800 million in the middle of Frank Kitts Park than actually build the light rail which will burn 95c of every dollar spent. It has a benefit-cost ratio of 0.05. It is in the toilet when it comes to any sort of rational economic modelling.But it's worse. It's worse because it's not just the regional fuel tax that would pay for that nightmare or their dream—our nightmare for the people who actually live in Wellington—because as a public transport system it will be subsidised by taxpayers all across New Zealand. So not only are they going to fleece motorists in Wellington 10c a litre plus GST but they'll take money from hard-working New Zealanders in Timaru in Kerikeri in Invercargill and they will spend it on an initiative that burns 95c of every dollar spent and this Government is enabling that behaviour.It's enabling that thinking by putting in extra tax measures such as this regional fuel tax which as I say is not limited to Auckland at all. They've spent almost all their time talking about the Auckland Transport Alignment Project and Auckland's needs but the reality is the regional fuel tax is a lever that is open for any regional council to apply for and already they are lining up to do just that.But still they think and they want us to believe that somehow this is good for New Zealand and it's good for Aucklanders. Well here's a thing too I noted as Mr Wood was speaking: they talk about how this is going to be good for people. Well how is this going to be good for a family struggling to get by in Manukau or down the line in Judith Collins' electorate—Papakura? How's it going to be good for people in Mr Twyford's electorate of Te Atatū? These are not high-income earning and they're not high socioeconomic areas of Auckland and yet all of the evidence shows that it is more likely that the people who are lower-income earners who will be more reliant of private transportation—on cars. They are less likely to be able to afford newer and more fuel-efficient cars and they are likely to have to travel further from home for both work and leisure so they will consume more fuel. They will pay more. They will buy more litres; therefore they will pay more tax. It is a deeply deeply regressive approach to try to deal with funding for transport options. What's more it's transport options that those very people who are going to hurt the most are least likely to get any benefit from.You know it occurred to me particularly as Mr Wood was speaking that this is a Labour Party that Michael Joseph Savage would not recognise. Now it's quite possible because the man as a Prime Minister made some pretty big infrastructure investments. I couldn't know for certain but it's quite possible that Michael Joseph Savage might have agreed that investment should be made into the transport system in Auckland but he would absolutely not have agreed that it should be the lower-income earners of Auckland—the people in South Auckland and west Auckland who are paying the most in terms of their disposable income—hurting the most to pay for it. It is not the Labour Party that he led. It's not the legacy that he wanted to leave behind.This is a Labour Party that has lost its roots. It's lost its way. It was born of support for the working New Zealander and the lower-income New Zealanders and with this very action it is showing that it no longer cares about those members of our society because if it was true then they would look for means to fund these programmes which hurt those people least. They just don't care.Kieran McAnulty: Take some notes from Mr Carter. He can act. Take some notes from him.BRETT HUDSON: We've got a visitor from Canberra here—that's interesting! What are you doing in the New Zealand Parliament sir?So here they are wanting to hurt those people most. Why would they do this? Why would they do this? You really have to wonder. Well it's because they are an extraordinarily patronising Government. Mr Twyford has made the comment—and I believe so too has the Prime Minister. What they said was that it will be good for them in the long term. So their answer to those poorer New Zealanders—those people who are struggling to get by—is "We know better than you. It'll be good for you in the long term. Sit down and be quiet. We're going to hurt you for a while but in the long run you will thank us for it." Well that is an absolute disgrace—absolutely shocking.This is a bad measure. It's a bad measure also because it is absolutely not required. As Mr Ross pointed out if the mayor of the Auckland super-city had actually done what he committed to do on the campaign trail when he was going for the mayoralty and had actually addressed the waste and addressed cost savings in the council he could have saved more than this fuel tax will deliver his council—a lot more—but he hasn't done that. So this fuel tax in effect lets him off the hook. It also lets every other regional mayor—and to a degree therefore a local body mayor—off the hook as well because they can now get some free money. They can all apply for this. They can all put up some transport plans. They can all get an amount of regional fuel tax—it'll always be 10c plus GST—that they can levy and because they can extract this from the back pockets of their local citizenry then they will not have to have the same fiscal discipline on their spending.It is disgraceful and what's more it's not just going to be people in their own regions paying for their own fuel tax because competition will compete away the additional charge in say Auckland and we'll see by default that having to be spread across the country as participants—as fuel companies in Auckland—are meeting the local market price. But the cost of the product's gone up so they've then got to counter for that somewhere else and that means that people from Timaru pay for Auckland's transport worries. This is an atrocious bill from a very very bad Government that's lost its way."