Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'd like to say that it's a better bill at this the second reading but it certainly isn't. There are a couple of reasons for that the first of which of course is the Government's decision to sneak this extra tax in by shifting the date to 1 July. It wasn't necessary and had they chosen any other date had they chosen to keep it at 1 October of course we could've had a select committee process for this bill and New Zealanders could've had the opportunity to submit to the Government to Parliament and tell us what they think about their cost of living being raised by this Government on the first day of its so-called Wellbeing Budget. It's very difficult I think to justify and to explain this so-called world-first wellbeing Budget if the very first action the Government takes to legislate change under it is to raise people's cost of living to take more money out of their pockets and if their track record is anything to go by to waste it.So we could have and should have had a select committee process even—as much as we dislike it on this side of the House and they used to in Opposition—if that select committee process had have been a truncated one. We still could have given the opportunity to interested parties and particularly New Zealanders themselves to tell us—to tell the Government in particular—what they think about having additional taxes imposed on them. Instead what we have and are now debating in a second reading is a sneaky attempt to grab even more.The Government did say last year that they intended to raise fuel excise taxes not only last year which they legislated for at the time but this year and next year. But they signalled that those other two increases would be on 1 October of this year and next. So suddenly people can perhaps anticipate—I wouldn't say look forward to it because they wouldn't be looking forward to it but anticipate that there are some additional costs to be imposed on them. But along comes Budget day and surprise surprise without any forewarning or signal they discover that both the first iteration and the second are each going to be levied three months ahead of the original plan. Now that will have a cost imposition over and above the 8c including GST itself of an additional we believe $60 million—$30 million each year—which puts the total as the Minister has said that the 4c a litre including GST is an impost of $120 million. So there are two of those which is $240 million and this extra $60 million. New Zealanders arrive here on Budget day find out what the Government wants to announce and the first thing they learn is we're going to take an extra $300 million off them—hard-working New Zealanders.Although it was signalled somewhat in advance—not the exact timing but these extra excise charges—I think it is not only possible but appropriate that as the Government goes through each of its financial years and is able to assess what has been done what has worked and mainly for them what hasn't worked but also what the forecasts are for the years ahead to have to not only re-look at what their plans were but to re-justify them because quite frankly I would argue that there is no justification for these 4c a litre tax increases in the first place. For instance the Government has come into the Budget giving back or re-prioritising or re-allocating about $300 million that had been set aside for the fees-free programme because they discovered that it didn't work. They didn't get a single extra student. They in fact may have lost some along the way but it didn't work. So there's a very solid argument to say that this tax is not an absolute requirement—not early or at all—because measures that the Government had spent other tax revenue on particularly surplus or anticipated surplus revenue on are not working.I mean of course there's the Provincial Growth Fund of Mr Jones. It's been in the press almost every day of the year mainly for the wrong reasons and a Government a Minister of Finance might well look at that and go I could use that money to do my roading and other transport activities."—which is what the National Land Transport Fund funds and what the excise funds. "I could choose to use other surplus money to do that and I don't have to add this incremental tax."—or taxes because there are two batches of them. The choices the Government could make—because we are firmly of the view that neither of these impositions are required.In fact we have had to listen tonight about allegations that we had unfunded and uncosted plans previously. Well I can tell the House and New Zealand that we fully intended to use some of the Crown account—all those surpluses—to fund some of our transport initiatives along with the National Land Transport Fund at the taxation rates that existed at the time. We believed it was possible. It could be just as possible for this Government notwithstanding the weakening economy is going to affect their forward surpluses somewhat so it does raise the point that these taxes are by no means necessary. Clearly by that side they are desired but they are by no means necessary.Because the taxes themselves are very clearly—or hypothecated—set against specific uses we can look at what it is the Government's going to use them for. The excise can only be collected for the National Land Transport Fund and the Government has already taken actions to show what its priorities are for under that fund. So the challenge here is that motorists—because it is motorists in their diesel and petrol cars in their vans and in their trucks who are going to be paying these additional taxes and therefore have a lesser disposable income for the other pressures in their lives. It is these motorists who are going to pay these two batches of additional taxes so they have every right to wonder and question what they will see from that and the Government has pretty much set that out through the general policy statement and the National Land Transport Programme.There is a removal from any prioritisation on reducing congestion certainly on our roads and a very strong objective or priority to mode shift into other non-car or non - motor vehicle forms of transport particularly as we see along Dominion Road in Auckland and most recently announced in Wellington into what appears to be light rail systems because the amount of money they've budgeted would tend to indicate very strongly that they can only be light rail. So motorists can ask themselves "Well OK if I'm paying an extra 8c a litre in fuel tax how does it help me?" In Wellington at least if you live north of the city in the northern suburbs such as all of Ōhāriu but also the Hutt Valley Wainuiōmata—if you happen to drive from Wainuiōmata; some people cycle a bit but if you happen to drive from the Hutt Valley and that area—those motorists will be paying significantly more in these taxes. They have every right to ask themselves "What do I get for the extra tax impost?" They still have to go to work; they've still got lives to lead. They may have children going to sports. There are things—desirables or necessities—for them to get around in their motor vehicles so they will pay extra tax under this bill. They have every right to say "What do I get?"Well that programme that the Minister announced just a week or so ago Let's Get Wellington Moving—it's not terribly aptly named but that's still what it's named—means that they will no longer get an extra southbound lane from Ngauranga to Aotea Quay. They are not going to get an extra tunnel at The Terrace and neither will that Terrace Tunnel area be undergrounded to Te Aro. Now the Let's Get Wellington Moving programme was initiated by the previous Government and the clear objective of it was an integrated transport solution to unlock congestion and productivity from Ngauranga through to the airport. The programme that's been announced simply can't do that but what it does do through taxes like these—and particularly these are definitely part of it—is place an impost on motorists who gain absolutely no benefit from it at all because not only is the throughput not going to be there but the light rail scheme is going to remove a couple of lanes from out on the quays so they haven't even got a route change. They haven't even got alternative routes that they can use to somehow lessen the congestion they're going to face. So they've got every right—every right I believe—to question the motives but certainly the actions of a Government that would simply take more money out of their pockets and give them nothing in return.In the first reading speech I said that in a manner of speaking—by no means a direct definition but in a manner of speaking—this action could be likened to the most egregious form of taxation which is taxation without representation. In this case the people who will be paying the most are people who are required to use motor vehicles or whose lifestyles or circumstances favour it most and an earlier contribution pointed out—and officials have agreed in the regulatory impact statement by the way—that this is a very regressive tax. It is well understood that lower-income earners are more reliant on their motor vehicles than others so they do pay a disproportionately higher amount. It is clear that they are getting hurt more. They will pay more of this impost—this $300 million impost—but what are they personally going to get from it? The answer at best is very little and quite frankly approaches nothing. That is why I make the argument that it could be seen and could be interpreted as an equivalent of taxation without representation. It is unnecessary it is wrong and it is bad for New Zealanders particularly when it's supposed to be a wellbeing Budget. We oppose this."