Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. In my previous contribution I was talking about the proposals to establish a regional fuel tax (RFT) and how our regional councils have to have some narrative around the objectives under the general policy statement for land transport but there's no clear criteria as to what level they have to show that they'll meet those objectives in order to get a successful proposal over the line.Actually that's a real problem because one of the objectives—and I'd argue the very most important of them—is the value-for-money criteria or objective. Now that is the most important because after all a Government is simply stewarding the taxpayers' money. So hard-working Kiwis through their taxes—the Government has a job to make sure that they get the very best return on that spend. Well this bill will allow a regional council to apply for a regional fuel tax. It only has to have a narrative around how it supports that and other objectives; it doesn't have to meet a certain threshold. This is a shame because in the Estimates hearing the Minister confirmed that he would meet the commitment in that objective in the draft Government policy statement (GPS) where the New Zealand Transport Agency have said that even for out-of-scope proposals—so it's the ones with lower benefits—they would still expect that even for one that wouldn't normally be prioritised the benefit to cost ratio would still be greater than one. Well this legislation in the way it's written means that wouldn't have to be the case if a council put a proposal up for regional fuel tax money.And it's even worse because in new section 65J in clause 5 Decisions of Minister of Finance and responsible Minister concerning proposed RFT scheme" theirs is an absolute discretion a complete discretion and they don't have to make any reference to the GPS for land transport in making that decision. So the Minister of Finance and the responsible Minister can agree to a regional fuel tax that doesn't meet any of the objectives of the GPS and that is absolutely wrong. I call upon the Minister and officials to put up a Supplementary Order Paper quickly to actually make sure that anything that's going to be funded or part-funded through an RFT will have to meet those objectives and in a way that is objectively measured and can be relied upon not some subjective whim.There's an amendment in my name which is around changing the definition of "fuel" under this bill. The change I would have is to amend new section 65A to replace the definition of "fuel" with "Fuel means specified engine fuel as defined in section 181(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 but without regard for paragraph (B) of that definition and diesel and biofuel." Now despite us being opposed to this bill the intention of my amendment is not to exclude diesel or biofuel from the extra taxation burden to help fund the trams on Dominion Road although they shouldn't do that. But if we just assume that the bill may pass instead of diesel users paying their additional burden via a per-litre tax at the pump this is looking at paying it through an increased road-user charge because that is currently the way those fuel users pay the equivalent of fuel excise today. They pay it on a per-kilometre basis but it's being calculated to be relative to what petrol motorists pay on a per-litre basis. So they already meet their fair share of fuel excise through a road-user charge today.If there is going to be an increased regional fuel tax burden for petrol users my argument is that diesel and biofuel users instead of paying a per-litre price should for consistency do that through an increased road-user charge. As I say the calculations already exist today to do what is in effect a conversion from a per-litre price for a petrol user to a per-kilometre price for a diesel or biofuel user and that would make it a lot easier and consistent for those owners of diesel- and biofuel-powered vehicles to meet their share of the additional burden but to do so under the current mechanism they have and that way just have the one means of addressing it which it is through their prepaying of kilometres through the road-user charge. I think that's a fairer and more reasonable way for those motorists to pay their share and I call upon the Minister and officials to accept it."