Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker and it's a pleasure to speak in the general debate continuing with the theme of this side of the House—the cost of living—and I'll be majoring on the fuel tax. Now for those on the other side who might think that this is merely a matter of economics—as though that's not important enough—let me assure them it is also a matter of politics. There is an inverse proportion between the fuel prices and the Government's support in my electorate. And if they don't know that now and aren't prepared for that shock then that's the real oil shock that they'll be facing in 2020.These things do matter. And I'm going to have to say for the edification of members opposite explained in very simple terms using the Micawber principle Annual income twenty pounds annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six result misery." These things do matter. While it might be rightly said that money can't buy you happiness it can ensure a more pleasant form of misery.So these things are important to people up and down the land. They're certainly important to the good people of Helensville. They are watching these matters carefully—the extra costs that are being imposed upon them by this Government. The numbers do matter and often it's the marginal increases that hurt the most—it's the marginal increases. So I shake my head when I hear members on the Government side and their supporters saying "Well sure we're increasing the fuel prices by way of excise and by way of fuel tax but you increased it during your time in Government as well." Well I'd have some respect for that position if they'd repealed our increases and replaced them with their own but they're adding them on top. So they're claiming the one and adding the other. So it makes no sense whatsoever for these crocodile tears to be shed about previous increases to which they are now adding further increases.It's not the first straw that breaks the camel's back; it's the last one as the axiom goes and the straws are being piled on thick and fast by the Government in their rush to achieve various aims they say which I'm dubious about in any case. Certainly for the people I represent there's nothing much on the horizon in terms of the transport improvements that one might expect as a result of the fuel tax. We're getting the pain but not getting the gain as yet.In the context of politics generally and certainly in the area of taxation the other side of the House talks a lot about progressive taxes or progressive politics. It's the idea that there can be an unequal application of a thing because the circumstances of people are different. Well I respect and understand that as far as it goes. It makes sense in some situations. It might be possible to have different philosophical understandings of fairness—such that equality of taxation is on one measure fair and on another measure different. Well that's fine; we can have that argument all day long but I'd actually like to bring a geographical analysis to the idea of progressive taxation particularly with regard to the people I represent in the electorate of Helensville—namely the west coast and the rural north-west of Auckland.It is an electorate within Auckland that I represent. The electorate is therefore subject to the regional fuel tax that this Government has introduced but the tyranny of geography is very important for two reasons. The reason that the impacts on my electorate are outsized compared with others—even within the Auckland region and certainly compared to those without—is that my people have a lot further distance to travel both within the electorate and also to the CBD and other areas where employment and other opportunities exist more so in my area. So the extra fuel tax is actually impacting upon those people going about their daily lives in ways that they can't very readily avoid such as going to work which is an activity we want to encourage and not discourage. And so that's the first aspect: the greater distances to be travelled within areas of Auckland which are still subject to the tax but which require a greater expenditure of fuel.The second element goes to the aspect of competition. Much has been made of the importance of competition in the fuel market. Of course that's true as far it goes—that competition is important—but in areas that are more rural more remote there are naturally fewer fuel stations. There's less ability for competition. So it's all very well for the Prime Minister to talk about "the Gull effect" as though that were something that could be sprinkled about like so much fairy dust or indeed stardust but it's actually not understanding the geographical realities of areas of Auckland—specifically my area but others too such as the electorate of Andrew Bayly—that don't have access to these ways of keeping the cost of living down and that's a real shame."