Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill surprising as it is to the members on the other side. This really nuts down to a very simple philosophy because really if we want Auckland to get ahead and to meet its challenges of infrastructure and well-being—well-being for its citizens—what we really want is Auckland and Aucklanders to thrive to get ahead. We want business growing we want people having opportunities and getting ahead. The coalition Government's answer to what you do to help Aucklanders succeed and get ahead to help businesses grow and people do better is you tax them more. That is what this does—it simply imposes a tax on individuals and businesses operating within the Auckland region.Well I'll remind the Minister of some very wise words from Sir Winston Churchill who remarked Trying to tax your way to prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle." and that's exactly what this bill seeks to do. It is an absolute travesty. It is a complete misunderstanding of what generates success wealth and prosperity in a nation and actually it's not required.But before I get on to the council and how it should be discharging its financial responsibilities better let's take a look at the bill. The bill's going to establish a framework an ability for a unitary or regional council to request to levy a fuel tax in its region or area. There are a lot of considerations that need to be made around that such as its link to the regional transport plan to the Government policy statement on land transport. It's certainly not without its rules but let's look at what it is and how it is applied.So yes as the Minister pointed out it applies to petrol and diesel fuel but not to certain other fuels such as compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas. But here we go: he said it can only last for 10 years. Well that's a little disingenuous. It can only last for an initial 10 years but it's the council that reviews before its expiry as to whether it should be extended longer. It may be required. It may ask all sorts of people and stakeholders what their views are but that's a very different prospect from those stakeholders deciding whether or not it gets extended. Just another example of a Government that's never found a tax it doesn't like creating a new tax that could actually go on for a long long time. I suggest if they ever have the opportunity—and we'll be working hard to prevent that—it would go on into perpetuity.But here's a little thing—I do hope this bill could be defeated at first reading but just if it isn't here's a wee thing I noted—that I would hope the select committee will look into with some degree of scrutiny: apparently the fuel tax will be collected at the distribution level the point where the fuel is supplied by a distributer to service stations and commercial storage facilities. Here we go: a Government that doesn't understand the fuel industry its distribution methods and particularly its retail end.Really there are three principal means under which fuel will be retailed to consumers at a station. The first is the station will be company-owned so it will be the company who's distributing the fuel who pays the tax when it delivers the fuel to its service station—that's fine. But the other two will either be a franchisee who pays for the fuel upon delivery and gets a higher commission rate or profit margin for that or it will be what's known as an agency model. That's where the retailer doesn't actually purchase the fuel at the point of delivery which is the point when the tax falls due but instead pays the cost of each litre to the distributor the fuel company the day after it's sold. So think about that. The way I understand this is written up means that that retailer will be obliged to pay the fuel tax when the tanker comes along at night and drops 30000 litres into their tanks but it will be some days or even up to a week before it can actually sell that fuel and recover the tax from the consumers and therefore actually cover the costs. And these are small businesses—small businesses. That's going to kill their cash flow.The Government doesn't care. They don't care at all because they're not concerned about that. Their view is that a country can tax its way to prosperity. So they are not concerned about that at all. I would ask if this goes to select committee for them to look at and actually look at changing this travesty.But there is a very good reason that New Zealanders could have every right to expect that this bill will not go to select committee. The reason they could have every right to expect this bill will not make it to select committee is because of the integrity of New Zealand First and its MPs. Absolutely it is that because for years New Zealand First led by the Rt Hon Winston Peters has railed against taxes on taxes on fuel. For years he's been on the public record time and time again saying it is an absolute disgrace that the Government levies GST on fuel taxes. He thinks that's terrible. For years he's said that we should remove the GST on the taxes on fuel. But here we go: in this bill this regional fuel tax is subject to goods and services tax. So we can look forward to—the people of New Zealand can look forward to later on this evening or maybe the next sitting day—Winston Peters and the New Zealand First MPs—because they are people of integrity they will stick with the position they have had for years and they will vote this down because they don't believe in a tax on a tax they don't believe in GST on petrol taxes. So I look forward to them casting their votes there.But now let's get to why this bill isn't actually necessary or shouldn't be. The Auckland Council—well Auckland has challenges; that's unquestionable. But let's look at the spending growth in the council over the last four years: $800 million—it's up $800 million. Now that's easily enough to service a $6 billion gap that Mr Twyford talked about. If they would just get their spending under control they wouldn't need to tax their citizens their residents more.Andrew Bayly: They can't help themselves.BRETT HUDSON: No they can't. It should be tightening up its own spending not simply looking to a Labour Government to get it more money.But here's even worse: this allows other councils—other authorities—to also request for regional fuel taxes so this could be new regional taxes across all of New Zealand. Now it is true that they can't put those taxes into effect until 2021 but there is another little piece of disingenuous behaviour by this Government. They went into the election and came into Government pledging no new taxes to be implemented before the next election—they would campaign on them they said. Well this bill actually puts in place the mechanism for those taxes and craftily tricks New Zealanders by saying "Oh well it's not really a new tax because it can't come into effect until 2021."—but they are legislating for it right now. They are creating the tax. They're going to be tricky and make sure it doesn't come into effect outside of Auckland till after the election but make no mistake this is a new tax. They have backtracked on their pledge already. We're seven months into a term and already they've backtracked on the pledge of no new taxes and here's a new tax across all of New Zealand.It's a regressive tax. They have always claimed to be the party of the workers of New Zealand but this tax will hurt working New Zealanders more than anyone else. They like to believe that working New Zealanders don't have cars. Well that's simply not the case. As officials pointed out lower-income earners are more likely to live further from the destinations they need to reach whether that's for work or for their own leisure and family commitments—they will travel more. That means a fuel tax will hit them more because they travel further and on lower incomes. It is deeply deeply regressive. It is a disgrace that a Labour Party—that a Labour-led Government—would actually impose a tax which they know will hurt lower-income earners most.Talk about chardonnay socialists. Sitting in their ivory towers pontificating what the little people of New Zealand need and the first thing they do in tax is they come out and they stiff them with a deeply regressive tax that is going to make low-income earners in New Zealand worse off.It's a bad bill. It's a bad bill because it's unnecessary. It's a bad bill because it just helps greater wanton spending by our largest unitary council. It's a bad bill because it creates the framework to deploy that all across New Zealand. And it's an absolutely disgraceful bill because it stiffs the hard-working New Zealanders who work so hard and who can least afford this. I oppose this bill."