Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): We know from Minister Twyford's interjection or explanation a short time ago that we can't actually believe much of what he says and I think looking back and listening to that speech from the Minister I don't believe much of what he says either. The primary reason why this legislation is before the House—and I acknowledge we're at the end of the road now after a long tortuous process where the Minister has actually ended up killing public support for fuel taxes. At the end of the road here the reason why this House is passing this piece of legislation is because it lets the Auckland Council off the hook. Phil Goff seems to think it's bad for this side of the House to expect the Auckland Council to find savings. It was his own former colleague that went into an election saying that he would find 3 percent to 6 percent savings within the Auckland Council's budget. It was his own colleague that said after the election to the media that that's what would be happening. But it turns out that's not possible according to Phil Goff and the Auckland Council and so Phil Twyford rode into town and said Hey I've got an idea. Let's go and tax people more up to 11.5c a litre." But it doesn't stop at that. It goes even further than that because the reason why Phil Twyford has killed support for petrol taxes is because on top of his 11.5c a litre for a regional fuel tax he's also proposing nationwide fuel tax increases. The total cumulative effect of what Phil Twyford has put on the table for Aucklanders and people around the country to pay is up to 25c a litre and that's why when Auckland Council polled this issue of a regional fuel tax they actually found a bit of support—52 percent were in support—but since then support's been dropping. Since the Minister has been out there failing to promote and promise and do a good job of promoting his fuel taxes now we see 58 percent of people are opposed to the regional fuel tax—Hon Mark Mitchell: 58 percent? JAMI-LEE ROSS: —58 percent opposed from a poll from the very same company. The fact of the matter too is that there is no single existence of there being public consultation where there's been support for this regional fuel tax. The Auckland Council held a public consultation: more people opposed than in support. They held a second public consultation: a majority of people opposed. When the Finance and Expenditure Committee held a consultation on the bill 89 percent of submissions were opposed to this. That's because the country does not want this Labour Government to tax people more when it's not necessary. I say that the Government should hold the Auckland Council to account—do what we were doing and say to Auckland Council "We're not going to give you the ability to tax people more at the petrol pump until you get your own house in order."And we cannot believe what the Minister's saying about roading projects. It's laughable for him to come to this House and talk about Mill Road and Penlink. Our side of the House went into an election promising not only to bring those projects forward; we were going to designate Mill Road as a State highway and complete it. We also were ready to go on Penlink. Where's Penlink sitting now? Mark Mitchell was ready to get out his diggers and get out his shovels in a year or so's time. Penlink's been pushed to the end of the decade. Marja Lubeck likes to go on about how they're delivering Penlink. It's at the end of the decade—she won't even be here by that time. This fuel tax does not have the support of Aucklanders and the Minister cannot come into this House and claim that they've got some grand plan for Auckland that's going to solve everything. The only real difference between what we were doing and what they're proposing is they're proposing $6 billion worth of trams that we wouldn't fund because we don't believe that they're necessary or that they would deliver much in the way of benefits and they're cancelling the East-West Link. On top of that they're taxing people more.The very reason why the Minister is talking about projects—"What would National kill? What would National get rid of?" Well I tell you the difference between our projects is very simple: we won't be putting $6 billion into Auckland trams that are not necessary and don't go down the corridors that actually are seeing growth. We would deliver a sensible transport plan that we'd already agreed with the council that was already in place and that he has effectively picked up—just the difference is we won't tax people more and we won't be funding those trams.We went into the election with nine years of track record of delivering projects for Auckland. The Waterview Connection: open because we were working on it. We had Steven Joyce who ensured the tunnel was in place and was properly funded. We delivered Waterview Connection. The Victoria Park Tunnel—that went through under us. Motorway widening—that went through under us and was happening. [Interruption] DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shh! Order!JAMI-LEE ROSS: We were seeing projects around Auckland going through because the National-led Government was delivering on it.But the Labour Party didn't have a policy before the election; they gave that to Generation Zero—they contracted effectively Generation Zero to put in place their transport policy. They couldn't come up with their own ideas. They uplifted Generation Zero's plan which is solely and ideologically focused on trams—yesterday's technology—when he had advice that buses would be a far more effective way of delivering projects for Auckland and delivering congestion benefits. Phil Twyford should not be listened to on the issues of transport and I don't believe that he should be the one out there promoting new taxes for the Government because he's wholly failed to find support for this regional fuel tax.It's not just an Auckland issue either. I think we need to be more honest in this House about what this bill actually would do. It's not an Auckland regional fuel tax; the Minister is passing a bill that would allow fuel taxes to go up as regional fuel taxes around the rest of the country. There's a caveat that it's only for Auckland now but if it was only for Auckland why does this bill contain clauses that would allow regional fuel taxes around the rest of the country? It's because that's what their plan is. It's because that's what they want and I think when the rest of the country sees what is happening to Auckland they will be even more afraid of allowing Phil Twyford to continue with his transport plans.The other thing about this bill which I find wholly inappropriate is the fact that inserted into the bill is regulation-making power that would allow the Minister without any reference to Parliament and without any reference to the public to increase regional fuel taxes as high as he wants. There is no upper limit there is no maximum—it's simply a regulation-making power that allows the Minister to increase regional fuel taxes as high as he desires. It's not capped at 10c a litre in the bill; it's not capped at 20c or 30c a litre in the bill. In fact there is no legislative maximum in this bill as to how high regional fuel taxes can go. Using a "Henry VIII" clause the regional fuel taxes can go as high as the Minister wants under a regulation-making power. No checks no balances and no reference back to Parliament; it's simply there for the Minister to do at his own whim. I find a clause like that to be wholly inappropriate. I think that when it comes to a taxation-making power there should be greater reference back to the Parliament and we should not have those clauses in there.I'm also appalled that the Minister—and he admitted this in answers to select committee—has done no work on the issue of price spreading; no work on the issue of how an Auckland regional fuel tax would affect the rest of the country. We already know that other parts of the country are seeing fuel companies increasing the price of fuel in anticipation of the regional fuel tax. We know through Ministry of Transport commentary that there is an expectation that there will be price spreading. He did no analysis on it though—didn't ask any questions. And when I asked in the House whether he had read formal modelling he said he had; when I asked whether it existed he said it had; but when he fronted up to select committee and provided written answers to the select committee his officials advised him to give the answer—which I believe was probably the accurate one—"No formal modelling existed." So Phil Twyford's putting in place a tax that he does not understand the impacts of that isn't necessary and that he's seen no formal modelling on—he can't have seen it because it doesn't exist.He hasn't properly considered the impact on low-income New Zealanders either. There were a few lines in select committee reports and a few lines in some advice but the reality is that these taxes are regressive. They will ensure and see that the lowest-income New Zealanders living in South Auckland Māori and Pacific families that they claim and purport to represent will be the ones hit the hardest by this regional fuel tax. They also won't see any benefits. They won't see any trams going past their doors. They won't see anything in the way of transport efficiency that the Minister claims is necessary and will exist.This regional fuel tax is unnecessary and will be repealed in a few short years' time. This regional fuel tax isn't one that should exist because the Mayor of Auckland should be held to his promises and we don't support regressive taxes where no real research has been done into their impacts and we don't support something that does not have any support from Aucklanders—in fact a majority of people time after time after time have told Parliament and the council they don't support it. The Labour Party should front up and do the right thing by New Zealanders and not support this bill. This side certainly won't be."