Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Madam Assistant Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. My theme of these remarks will be opposites because we oppose this bill vigorously. A series of opposites I will explore including the following: pragmatism versus ideology legislation versus regulation promise versus reality long-term planning versus a rushed process dollars versus kilometres and Auckland versus other regions.The first of those is pragmatism versus ideology. On this side of the House we ask ourselves what is the best and quickest and fairest way to get things done but on the other side of the House—on the Government benches as they now are—they believe simply in taxation. And so it is that they are able to reach into the tool bag and find the very first—and indeed only—tool available at their disposal that they are prepared to pick up and it is taxation. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) can achieve so much. If we were in Government now—and when we are in Government in the future—we would be much more willing to reach into a tool bag that includes a vast array of different tools of which public-private partnerships or PPPs will be one.So too on the ideology front: this current obsession with light rail as distinct even from heavy rail despite much having been said about that during the election campaign up and down this country including in my own electorate of Helensville where a rail line available for passenger rail lies disused beyond the Swanson rail station not to Huapai-Kūmeu let alone further afield—again despite numerous promises and much noise having been made in the election campaign on that.My next distinction—my next set of opposites—is regulation versus legislation. Of course by definition this House is passing legislation but we're doing something else: we're also providing a regulatory framework such that taxes under this bill can be increased in the future and that goes in two directions. The direction is across—so it's across from Auckland to other regions—and it's also up because you can bet your bottom dollar that the direction of travel for these taxes will not be down. Previous speakers on my side of the House have noted that there is nothing to stop higher rates of tax that are currently envisaged—a tax on a tax I might note in parenthesis—Henry VIII" provisions so called. Henry VIII would be turning in his grave right now if he knew what the New Zealand Parliament was about to do and the founding fathers of America who brought about the phrase "taxation without representation" would also be turning in their respective graves.My third set of opposites is promise versus reality—promise versus reality. The Government came in and claimed to be a Government of promise. In fact they are merely a Government of promises. My favourite syllogism—and I'm conscious that some members opposite may not even have a favourite syllogism—"We must do something. This is something therefore we must do it." That seems to be the extent of the logic being applied to this and to hear the Minister of Transport saying that this is something that we've simply got to crack on with because there is no choice there is no other way is simply untrue because as I have explained there is more than one way to skin the funding cat including for example public-private partnerships. The lack of imagination on the other side—the lack of imagination as well as education on the other side—is woeful and dangerous for New Zealand.I'm reminded of Voltaire's famous rebuke to the Holy Roman Empire that it was neither holy nor Roman nor empire when I reflect on the failure to deliver of the Government in relation to another policy matter—and I will speak only briefly on that for the purposes of relevance. The KiwiBuild policy is neither Kiwi nor build nor is it a policy that's coherent. So that brings me to my next set of opposites which is the difference between promise and reality.If the Government side could be trusted to deliver on the promises that they're making in relation to the things that they say will be able to be funded by the fuel tax if the New Zealand public had confidence that they would be able to deliver on such promises they might be more willing to accept the tax that will be coming their way to fund them. However a certain scepticism that has been building ever since that Government was sworn in is relevant to note in this debate because the appetite of Aucklanders and indeed the whole country in due course to pay for that which they will not receive any time soon and perhaps not at all—the patience on that score will surely wear thin very very soon. And so we hear about pipelines. We hear from the Hon Shane Jones that there is a pipeline of projects. But I think a pipe dream of projects is a more relevant way to characterise the promises that we have heard opposite us today.My next set of opposites is the difference between long-term planning and a rushed process. We hear that the long-term needs of Auckland and indeed again I say the whole country are dictating this measure. A necessary evil they tell us although for them it's not so much an evil as a good; an opportunity not a challenge of taxation—an opportunity to reach into the pockets of Aucklanders and all New Zealanders. They talk about the long-term needs of Auckland and beyond but it's a rushed process that has brought in this new taxation a point underlined by the fact that it will be later this week—this week—that the effect of the pernicious legislation will be felt. Barely will the ink have dried on the legislation—the Royal assent will barely have been scrawled on the legislative documents—that the pump will be flowing and the dollars will be flowing even more.And so with my remaining time I'd like to focus on a couple more opposites. One is dollars versus kilometres. Much of the discussion opposite has been about the need to pay a bit more to get some things done. Well I've already talked and my various colleagues have already talked about the fact that there is more than one way of getting things done but actually I'd like to turn it around and challenge the other side to realise that in many cases for Aucklanders and again I emphasise all New Zealanders the disposable income for purposes of transportation is fixed. So the question is not whether they will be paying more to get the same amount of travel the same amount of distance and the same amount of petrol but rather that they will have only the same amount of money available to spend and they will not be able to go as far. Their opportunities will be limited by the fact of this legislation coming in to introduce a taxation which is at a certain level now and will almost certainly be higher later. The principle of a ratchet applies in relation to taxation—it only ever seems to go up and not down. The reverse gravity that seems to apply to taxation policy of left-wing Governments will apply all too certainly I am sure of that.Finally "Auckland versus other regions" is my opposite that I wish to finish on because much has been made of the fact that it was designed and intended and advertised and campaigned to be in Auckland—the regional fuel tax. We've heard on this side—and it's not denied by the other side and how could it be; it's in black and white—that this will be a regional fuel tax that does surely in time apply to other regions but it's interesting to note that for the purposes of taxation Auckland is a region and yet for the so-called regional development fund Auckland is not a region. So for the areas of Auckland that are neither fish nor fowl—or rather they're one and not the other depending on whether the Government is proposing to give or take away—it's a bit ironic. In particular for the rural parts of Auckland like my constituency of Helensville there will be much scepticism about a Government which continues to say that "The regions are important but by the way Auckland you're not one of them." until it comes time to apply and impose a tax at which point: "Yes indeed you are a region and we'll have your extra money plus some extra taxation on the tax besides."Hon Members: What a joke.CHRIS PENK: So for all these reasons it's a joke but not a funny one. The people of Auckland are unimpressed. The people of New Zealand are unimpressed. We're unimpressed and hence we oppose this bill vigorously."