Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I want to talk about an amendment to clause 10 which is an amendment from my good colleague from Kaikōura Mr Stuart Smith who represents that excellent electorate down there which I understand is just slightly larger than the State of Israel. So of course very relevant because Kaikōura's got a lot of roading projects down there and of course this is what we're talking about: fuel tax.What the proposal actually is about is that after clause 10(5) we want to amend new section 34B of the Local Government Act which is about the issue of cost-benefit analysis. It states in new section 34B(1)(d) the cost benefit analysis that the Council has undertaken in relation to where the revenue [is] spent."The reason why I want to focus on that is that we all know that if we're spending great dollops of money on roading and infrastructure projects so-called being driven from this fuel tax that's being raised—by the Auckland Council initially but of course we know it's going to ripple around New Zealand—where is that money going to be spent and how is it going to be spent? The big question—even if we go to Auckland where this fuel tax is going to be put in place on 1 July in only a matter of a few days we know that their options are: do we spend it on public transport do we spend it on roads do we spend it on rail do we spend it on cycleways do we spend it on safety improvements or do we spend it on ferries? And I note in the recent press announcement just yesterday that there is virtually nothing allocated to ferries in Auckland—a shame in my personal view.And I think the allocated efficiency of how you spend money is really really important and that is really what benefit-cost analysis is about. And we know that it is about allocated efficiency and we know about the Pareto factor—don't we?—which is a very important part of a cost-benefit analysis. And I just don't think there is enough thought about those sorts of issues.So one of the things is I think you know there's always a choice about where you spend your money and where we spend all this money that's so-called going to be raised by this fuel tax in Auckland. So one of the things is: how do you align that money that's been ripped from the heart of people's wallets into appropriate projects?And I think one of the important things—I think if you don't have a disciplined approach around benefit-cost analysis of that money what you do is you end up with very sloppy expenditure. I can quote you for example in my electorate alone the Redoubt Road - Mill Road proposal. The Government love to say that they're doing the Mill Road extension which is an entire motorway from Manukau down round Papakura and re-joining between Drury and Ramarama; unfortunately that is not the case. All they're doing is the first bit Redoubt Road which of course was what Auckland Council wanted to do all along.And so what they're doing is they're spending not the $1 billion that the National Party agreed to do before the election but only $500 million. And they're going to do Redoubt Road and then they're going to upgrade a couple of intersections. And what I don't think the cost-benefit analysis does enough is actually look at all the benefits.So normally you do a cost-benefit analysis on the entire project but if you're only doing part of the project that means that you do not actually get all of the benefits. And I think in many cases some of the expenditure being proposed in the ATAP—Auckland Transport Alignment Project—does not have a proper analysis around all the benefits as if the projects were completed in full.And that of course brings me to the Living Standards Framework that Treasury has been proposing—and in fact we've been debating it over the last couple of days. What are the benefits? Should it only be a financial benefit? Should it only be an economic benefit? Or should we be applying the Living Standards Framework that the Secretary to the Treasury has been proposing—you know social capital human capital and environmental capital? I think all of those but I think the most crucial point is that when this money is being used it should be put through a proper cost-benefit analysis and should be subject to a disciplined approach."