Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak in the second reading. What can we say about the Government's idea around a regional fuel tax in cahoots with Auckland Council? First of all the Government introduced this legislation before Auckland was consulted on it—strike one. Strike two: they shortened the committee process and designed the legislation to suit council's proposal. This Government has moved heaven and earth to make Auckland pay more at the pump and I know that it's going to come back to haunt this Government. Stuart Smith: And we'll pay too.DENISE LEE: Yes we all pay—that's right. Thank you Mr Stuart Smith. Polling and consultation shows that Aucklanders do not want this tax. Hon Willie Jackson: That's not true. DENISE LEE: It's quite simple it's quite plain and it's quite clear. There have been at least six polls—thank you Mr Jackson—and only one poll shows that there has been any result other than opposition to this fuel tax. That one poll was at the very beginning from Auckland Council and that one poll cost $200000. It was designed and crafted by Auckland Council—a smaller sample—and before we knew that the Government was going to add on a national excise tax. A $200000 poll by Auckland Council and that's the only poll that the Government can clutch on to to prove that there is support when there isn't support. Back in May at the select committee process here in Parliament 89 percent of the 500 submissions were opposed. Also in May in the draft proposal for the regional fuel tax—the consultation that Auckland Council undertook—51 percent did not support and only 42 percent did. Back in May again in the One News Colmar Brunton poll—there we go Colmar Brunton again but this time a much bigger sample—58 percent were opposed. Here are the rock-solid results and still the Government arrogantly pushes on with a tax that undermines the debate. You see the point of this debate is to make clear I think from the Government that this result's inevitable. Well it shouldn't be inevitable—it shouldn't be inevitable—that Aucklanders will end up paying more at the pump. Now other cities and regions are lining up for this and it's really interesting to hear from a member who lives in Hamilton because you too will be paying at the pump. Just wait your council wants it so do all the other councils in New Zealand and Local Government New Zealand has confirmed this. It's a matter of time. We heard from Minister Genter earlier in the evening when she said that the Government is listening to the people. Need I repeat those poll results? The Government is not listening to the people. The polls are showing what the people think and how inconvenient that time after time the more this debate has gone on and the more time has gone on the more the poll results are getting clearer. It's not going their way; it's going by way of people speaking and trying to exercise their mandate on what they do and what they don't want to do with their wallets. The member Duncan Webb said earlier that this was an Auckland solution to an Auckland problem. Well that's not going to be the case if Mr Jamie Strange or your councils will want this solution for all of their problems. Again that'll be coming. Local Government New Zealand have confirmed that this is something that they want. Now if we think that this bill's about investing in transport projects well we were able to do that in our last Government—in the National Government. This bill is actually about Auckland looking to pass the burden of transport projects and funding to Aucklanders and their wallets. Is it right that soon the country will end up having to take on the same burden as well? I don't think so. If councils were able to responsibly prioritise their spending would this tax be needed? Of course I'm going to head on to Auckland Council very soon having been an Auckland councillor myself for four years. There should be a higher bar in place for councils to justify the imposition of a new tax on ratepayers—simple as that. Councils should be required to demonstrate clearly that they've exhausted all avenues for funding before they get to this particular tool in the tool kit. Where are the clear benefit-cost ratio business cases for the projects that they're proposing? How can they demonstrate where the revenue will go—to which projects—before they authorise and impose this sort of new regional fuel tax? Speaking of new revenue it wasn't that long ago when I was on the council and the idea the concept of an interim transport levy came up. Interim" ended up being three years. This has a theme and a feel to me like the interim transport levy which I did not support when I was in council. Council went for Aucklanders' wallets then and they're doing it again now but this time you've got a Government that is supporting them to do it. That's the difference right now. When it was the interim transport levy and I was around the council benches that was an internal discussion and very much an eleventh-hour solution that I didn't support. This time you've got council and Crown in cahoots working on this together. There are unintended consequences for business—and I'm going to touch on that soon—but let me talk about the unintended consequences for council. Do the Government know what they're about to set off in terms of trust ratings in Auckland Council? Do you even know or listen to what it's like to be an Auckland councillor and to experience the level of low-trust environment that there is? They've quantified it in their own reports and what the Government is doing is going to set it off one more time in a new way and on a new angle. The Government is going to—well perhaps it's not unintended I don't know. But the Government is about to send Auckland Council and Aucklanders into another spiral of a low-trust vortex. It is simple and it is clear. I've been there before and this is just going to do it again. Wait until 1 July. You see Councillor Mike Lee said in the debate "The problem here"—and I'm quoting—"is the lack of trust in the way Auckland Council spends its money to be frank." Other speakers said the same thing. The Government is contributing to the problem. Trust is low they're doing a hand-holding initiative with the Crown and the consequences will be dire for our biggest most prosperous and bustling city. Now I just want to talk a little bit on some of those unintended consequences for business. As we know the cost of shipping—that'll just simply be passed on to consumers through higher prices. Shipping costs food costs clothing household goods—those are the unintended consequences of this. We also know about family impact. How many times does the Government have to hear from economists from the New Zealand Initiative and from speakers from their own ministries around the impact on low-income families and on those who can least afford to pay more dollars every time they fill up their petrol tank? It was actually another councillor Fa'anana Efeso Collins from Manukau who said in his speech and I think he was very eloquent that he could not in good conscience—this is a Labour councillor—vote for the tax that would hit the poorest families the most. "The tax is taking food off the table."—that's what he said. How does the Government answer that? I want to finish in my last seconds by strongly objecting to the argument from the other side that you either do the fuel tax or you get congestion that you either have a regional fuel tax or you do nothing or that you have less revenue and if we get less revenue we'll have to cancel all the projects. That's rubbish. It's a funding question. The projects are going to happen. In fact they were all outlined in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project when we were there. It's about the funding—about how you get the funding. Now I know—and I'm going to finish in just a very short amount of time. Here's some funding options for you from a former city councillor. Non-strategic assets—Auckland Council take a look at those. Procurement strategy a whole-of-Government strategy—which doesn't happen at Auckland Council—take a look at that. Staffing levels—take a look at that too. We oppose this and we will repeal it."