Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Speaker. The best thing about that contribution was when the member sat down. This is an appalling use of the House's time and urgency and it will come as no surprise to members of this House that we in the Labour Party will be opposing this terrible piece of legislation that is being rushed through without any select committee process and with no public scrutiny and it is a real indictment on the ability of this Government to engage with communities because it simply does not know how to.The Act that this bill seeks to repeal and remove does have a purpose. It provides opportunities for the folk of Auckland and in particular the decision makers in Auckland to make decisions for their local community. There is an opportunity for many of those Auckland transport projects to move along the way and actually get done with provisions such as this.As I said earlier today this is a bill that basically forces Auckland into a corner. Earlier this evening we talked in this House about the possibility of renaming the bill and said that this should be a bill where its name is actually more about giving instructions to Auckland Council about the regional fuel tax (RFT) because that is exactly what this is all about. This will result in cuts to critical transportation projects in Auckland projects that will make a huge difference. It will mean that local government as a sector in Auckland will have to rethink what it wishes to do what it wishes to prioritise and how it wishes to fund things. That is not a good move that this Government is seeking to rush through the House under urgency at this late hour. It is a realistic fact that this will result in increases for those in Auckland because of the funding hole that will exist as a result of many of these projects that have been consigned to the scrap heap by this Government who seem to have the mantra of We know best."This is a Government that clearly has no eye on the future. It is a Government that has no new ideas it has no new funding and in particular it has no replacement for this legislation—there is no replacement whatsoever. They have no credibility they are wanting to whack folk with a 22 percent increase to fuel excise and they are wishing to effectively introduce a drivers' tax on folk. This is what Aucklanders are not expecting from this Government. It was unfortunate that the Government decided that they did not want a regulatory impact statement as part of this. They seem to have adopted this approach that because they won the election they're not going to bother about the impact that it's going to have and surely what we would expect is a Government that's prepared to actually stack those things up and be accountable for the things that are contained in that document. What we do have though—and this was referred to earlier in the House—is a departmental disclosure statement and it makes for very interesting reading. It makes for very interesting reading. I note that members opposite haven't really relied on that in any of their contributions as this piece of legislation was before the House this evening. But when we have a look at what is contained in that departmental disclosure statement in the absence of any regulatory impact statement it simply says that when it comes to the focus on the cost of living removing this regional fuel tax "will result in modest savings for households and businesses between $5-$10 per tank"—and we seem to hear that from Minister Simeon Brown frequently—but also that the actual savings based on the average distances that are travelled in Auckland City and not collecting that RFT out to 2028 will equate to around $1.85 for a motorist all right—$1.85. I've done a little bit of a calculation and a little bit of online shopping and I know members opposite don't like to hear this but what will that get Aucklanders? It will get them a 227-gram can of Dole pineapple chunks—not a large tin; a small one. Now if that's their solution to the cost of living pressures that households in Auckland are going to be facing then they are far from the mark in terms of where this bill will actually lie. This is also a bill that the departmental disclosure statement identifies as "regressive" but that it will also have a disproportionate impact on those from lower socio-economic backgrounds and we have heard in this House today from local members who have explained and who have questioned the Minister about the impact that this will have in local communities. Local communities in South Auckland: I heard from my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene the member for Māngere who talked about the impact that that would have in terms of access to the airport. These are issues that the Minister and this coalition Government seem very easy and quick to just move to one side.Rima Nakhle: Takanini can't wait.TANGI UTIKERE: But there are three projects of course—and I hear Ms Stanford calling out there. There are three projects of course that are going to remain in the picture and they are projects that are going to still be eligible for regional fuel tax funding or what is left of them and isn't it interesting that two of those three relate to two members in this Parliament? One relates to Pakuranga in terms of the Minister who is responsible for this bill—Simeon Brown.Hon Member: What a coincidence. TANGI UTIKERE: What a coincidence and when questioned as part of the committee of the whole stage one of the issues that came out was the perception of conflicts of interest. The Minister was given an opportunity to inform the House as to the process that things went through and the answer actually was non-existent.The other project it seems of particular interest is one that Erica Stanford seems to be very fond of—Hon Erica Stanford: For seven years my friend—seven years of lobbying.TANGI UTIKERE: —and it is in relation to project No. 12. Well it doesn't matter if it's for seven years or six years or whatever; the reality is it's still in the list. Why is it that when we look through those 14 projects of the three that seem to make the cut—Tim Costley: None for "Palmy". TANGI UTIKERE: Well "Palmy" is not in Auckland Mr Costley in case you didn't know all right? But of the three there were two of them that managed to make the cut and it's interesting that with regard to project No. 12 which is the Glenvar Road - East Coast Road Erica Stanford has put a petition up and lo and behold it's suddenly one of the projects that is still able to attract the funding. The other one is the member for Pakuranga the Minister who is responsible—his own project seems to be funded. They don't shy away from that—they don't shy away from that at all—and I find it very interesting that given the opportunity to address this in the committee of the whole House that opportunity was not taken up. Mr Speaker they get a bit tetchy over there when they get challenged and isn't that interesting?This is about a bill that is going to—yes—repeal but it is going to make a limited difference to many in Auckland and if we have a look at some of the other projects that are up for the scrap heap they are projects that relate to infrastructure. They are projects that relate to improving airport access. They are projects that relate to rolling out infrastructure when it comes to the electric charging of the ferry terminal something I wasn't able to speak to as part of this particular process. However capital expenditure for charging infrastructure for electric ferries among other things will not happen as a result of this bill. There are plenty of other active transport opportunities and plenty of other road safety opportunities that our colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor touched on. This is a Government that is signalling to Auckland that they know best when it comes to projects in Auckland and they didn't even support one of the amendments which was to ensure that there was ongoing dialogue and consultation with Auckland's mayor. Now we heard through this process that there have been conversations there has been dialogue and there have been discussions. What is—Shanan Halbert: A meeting. TANGI UTIKERE: There has been a meeting or two. What is wrong with putting in this piece of legislation a provision that would require there to be some consultation with Auckland so that the transport needs of the future for Auckland were considered and were put into the mix and that the mayor and the council were part of that particular process as well?This is a bill that has been rushed through the Parliament. It is something that is a real shame because of the projects that are still in the running they are ones that are of direct benefit to some members in this House who seem to be promoting these or have promoted them for quite some time.This is a bill where it really is a shame that the Parliament has progressed this piece of legislation without any select committee process. There has not been any opportunity and for a Government—a coalition Government—to simply say "Well we campaigned on this and therefore that is the justification." it is a blind-sided approach to democracy and we on this side of the House will not stand for it. I do not commend this bill to the House."