Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I do want to begin my contribution given that we are discussing Part 1 of the bill which basically dismantles the structure for the Auckland regional fuel tax—I do want to focus on the fact that our largest city in New Zealand has needed for quite some time now an integrated multimodal rapid transit network an integrated network. That's really what this particular fuel tax in terms of what it was going to be contributing to the projects that it would be contributing to—that is what it was feeding into.So in this part when we're talking about dismantling the structure that would contribute to what we believe on this side of the Chamber our largest city needs it is incredibly disappointing firstly that it's being dismantled at all given that what we really need is for us to be able to get around in a way that is easier for us to be able to provide greater access to businesses across Auckland by improving the public transport and other modes of transport across Auckland. We absolutely need to focus on reducing congestion and we need to lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately what this bill does is dismantle a structure that was contributing towards progress on all of those fronts. So it is disappointing firstly that this is even going through; and secondly it is even more disappointing that it's going through in the way that it is under urgency which means that we are here speaking on behalf of people—Aucklanders and others I would argue—who would be impacted by the changes made in this bill who don't have a say because all stages are going through under urgency.I know also that there have been arguments made over years based on for example an OECD report which was back in 2015 that showed that in lost productivity just due to congestion in Auckland we have lost productivity to the tune of $1.3 billion. That is an issue. That is a massive issue for us in Auckland but I would argue for the entire country as well. That report—again nine years ago—showed that Auckland and Wellington are the second and third most congested cities in Australasia following Sydney. So what we really need again I would argue is an integrated multimodal rapid transit transport network and this bill flies in the face of that.Looking just at the Order in Council I mean we know that this will lead to the fact that 14 projects that would have been funded through the Auckland regional fuel tax will now be reduced to three projects. So I like other colleagues on this side of the Chamber would like to ask the Minister specific questions because a number of those—whether it comes to walking and cycling routes—fall into the area that I live in in Auckland. I'd like some answers about what will replace that because that's the other point that I want to make through this. Dismantling the structure actually means that this is yet another step that this Government takes to repeal something with absolutely nothing to replace it with.So we've got if you look at the number of projects that will be potentially cancelled—because we know that the Auckland mayor has already asked for a number of these projects to stop. We know as I mentioned—actually no I didn't mention previously—the cancellation of this tax will leave a shortfall in transport funding for Auckland of $1.2 billion over the next four years. We know also that dismantling this structure and therefore scrapping this tax will mean that Auckland Council's ability to borrow will be significantly reduced. It will be reduced by $810 million a year. So the mayor has already said that a number of these projects are already put on hold likely to be scrapped. All we know given that one of the reasons behind this particular move according to this Government was to reduce the cost of living—we know that the other option is to put up rates for Aucklanders which means an increase in cost of living for Auckland as well.So I'd really like to know: what is the Minister going to replace a number of these projects with whether it's in safety measures or walking and cycling routes? What will replace the dismantling of this particular tax? Because again given that the regulatory impact statement has been dispensed with because this is in the Government's hundred-day plan we don't actually have an independent analysis of the impact that this will have on the people who will be most affected by the lack of those projects. There's 11 projects that will be scrapped as a result of this dismantling of this bill.