Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I appreciate that because this is only the second call that I've been able to take and unfortunately because it's been quite a busy period before and after the adjournment it hasn't been possible for me to be here for the whole of the debate. I was very concerned before I left the Chamber earlier this evening that at that point the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford hadn't taken any calls although I understand he has done so. The reason I was concerned was because there were not only a huge number of questions being put to him but also some very significant amendments being suggested including one in my name and I hope it's had adequate discussion in my absence. I am putting forward another amendment and I think it comes down to the crux of one of the most important matters. There's that old saying about No taxation without representation" and in the context of this debate I think what we are really looking at is a tax that is being proposed not only without adequate consultation but definitely which is not representative of the wishes of the electorate. There is ample evidence now from right around the country—not just in the Auckland region that is most directly affected in the immediate future by this particular tax—of the fact that this is not a tax that enjoys popular support.I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I'm just conscious of the fact that we are in the committee stage and apparently I have even longer to go in this particular call than I had at the start which is very pleasant.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's all right. Mine says four minutes.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yours says four? Well Madam Chair I'll just take my lead from you and assume therefore that the clock is—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There we go. Look at that now it's three.Hon TIM MACINDOE: I'm very happy to get on with it but it is of course—Kieran McAnulty: Filibustering.Hon TIM MACINDOE: No not filibustering at all but it is discombobulating when one is looking at the clock and trying to work out—ah the clock has just miraculously changed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I do apologise. I was not discombobulated. Hon TIM MACINDOE: No that's fine. Thank you Madam Chair. I shall resume. The point I was making is a serious one—that there is ample evidence from right around the country now that this is a particular measure that is deeply resented by many and in particular in areas that Labour MPs claim to represent and claim that they have their greatest support. There's no doubt at all that this is a tax that will fall disproportionately and most unfairly on those on low and modest incomes and in my own electorate I have many people who fit into that category. What is becoming clear is that while it may not be applying down in Hamilton and the Waikato region just now nevertheless it is clearly envisaged by the Government that the breadth of this legislation would be extended were the country unfortunate enough to see them get a second term. I want to implore the Government to look at the impact on not only those people who they claim to represent but the public at large who will not benefit from this tax but who will certainly pay quite a slice of it. I had the opportunity to do some campaigning up in Northcote during the recent by-election and it was very obvious as I spoke to people as I knocked on their doors and out on the streets that they were saying "We don't want to pay this tax. It's not going to be of benefit to us and yet we're going to have to pay a large chunk of it." I don't think that it is adequate for the Government to say "Well there are some projects that will benefit from this." when by the same token they are ignoring the fact that in the previous Government's tenure we had made very significant commitments to extra infrastructure spending particularly in roading but also with the City Rail Link in Auckland huge investment into KiwiRail and huge investment into different forms of public transport. It is not appropriate for the Government to say "Well we've just got to go on taking more and more money." when our commitments were funded out of the existing budgetary measures. And here not only have we got a Government that is saying "Well we need more money for these few projects" but in fact they're saying "A whole lot of things that the previous Government was able to fund are now disappearing." Well will the public get their money back? Who representing their electorate expects that their constituents are suddenly going to see a refund from the Government because the taxes that they were spending on previous projects will no longer go ahead? I am absolutely distraught that in my Waikato region the Cambridge to Piarere—or in fact the Cambridge right to the foot of the Kaimai Ranges proposal is no longer going to go ahead because that is a project that would have not only saved huge time reduced congestion and made transport much more efficient; it would've saved lives. The same was true of the extension of the road to Tīrau. So my point is that without consulting the public about this the Government is intending to take far more in tax than they ever let on beforehand reduce the number of projects on which that tax will be spent confine it to some very narrow areas and ignore the overwhelming body of public opinion that says "This isn't necessary and we shouldn't be doing this." We can be funding our infrastructure through the provisions that the previous Government has made and bear in mind that this Government inherited a very strong economy whereas its predecessor inherited a very weak one. This is just the wrong way of going about this whole particular issue."