Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I did want to come down and take the first of a couple of calls on this piece of legislation. I want to start by commending Mr Lawrence Yule's call—the speaker who's just resumed his seat—because like Mr Yule the people in my electorate had no understanding no advice and no indication at all that the intention of this Government was to bring in place a regional fuel tax in Selwyn. Nowhere in the discussion in Canterbury or in Selwyn or in Rangitata or in any of those parts of the country where I get out and about did we hear once from any of the representatives of the three parties now making up the Government that there was going to be a regional fuel tax in Selwyn. Certainly there wasn't an indication that that would fund projects around the country but not benefiting necessarily Selwyn.So I want to know from this Government and I want to know from the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford why when they committed—because here's what they did say to the people of Selwyn—that there would be no new taxes in this turn of Government they didn't say Except there will be a regional fuel tax likely in place in Selwyn and in Canterbury that we'll be legislating through within the first few months of our term." It's not something that's come up unexpectedly. I do want to hear from the Minister in the chair how he can defend saying to the people of Selwyn that there will not be new taxes and then within just a few months be legislating in this piece of law a new regional fuel tax (RFT) which can very likely apply to the people of Selwyn once the conditions in the legislation are worked through. And I find it repugnant that we are debating this legislation which was sold to the people of New Zealand as an Auckland fuel tax as in fact being a wolf in sheep's clothing intended to be in fact a tax across potentially every region of New Zealand.Now they'll say "Oh well it's not coming yet." It doesn't matter—we're legislating for it today. Today we are legislating for it and it is no comfort to the people of New Zealand that they will have to live under the sword of that oncoming tax for a couple more years while the Minister works out exactly how it's going to work.Now there are two particular issues that I want to touch on in this call in respect to the bill itself. The first of these is in relation to the proposed new section 65XA in clause 5 of the bill—and I am going to ask the Minister to talk us through this because this is a matter that as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) I was certainly interested in—and that is this process via which a regional tax taxpayer can have a decision of the Transport Agency for tax reviewed. Actually members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee are well used to dealing with taxation legislation and it's a very important principle of tax legislation that not only is it very clear what a taxpayer's obligations will be but there are clear processes for them to have an assessment reviewed if that is the case.Now originally the bill said "Well they can go to court." Actually anyone who's been in the position that I've been in of having to advise clients on the reality of taking something to court knows that that's frankly a nonsense. No taxpayer is going to go to the District Court to challenge an assessment of regional fuel tax unless frankly they have money to burn and nothing better to do with their time. And even then with the uncertainty they're unworkable. So the committee was very interested in how we could in fact set up a proper review process for those decisions that was something far short of going to court and the result is new section 65XA in Part 1 of the bill. That certainly sets out a process for internal review but what I want to ask the Minister is how taxpayers can have any confidence that that will be a fulsome independent and genuine review and not simply the person at the next desk rubber-stamping the decision of their colleague in the agency.There is nothing in new section 65XA that talks to or gives taxpayers any assurance whatsoever that a review of their taxation obligations will be anything more than a tick-through by the person at the next desk: "Hey mate. Someone's complaining about this assessment I made. Can you sign it off?" "Yep I've reviewed it." "That's good." That's not what FEC was talking about. That is not the sort of review process the taxpayers of New Zealand have come to expect—and I think rightly so. I would like to hear from the Minister how new section 65XA will work because there is nothing in that clause—as I read it Mr Twyford—that in any way sets up any assurance other than to say "Someone else in the agency will look at it and if they're happy then that's fine. And then by the way you can go back to court." and that isn't right.Now I want to turn to the amendment in my name on the Table which is suggesting an amendment to clause 5 of the bill again in Part 1 and again of course in clause 5 making amendments to the Land Transport Management Act and in this case inserting new section 65E. Now new section 65E of course goes through and sets out the matters that must be contained in a proposal for a regional fuel tax and goes through a list of some of what is required. The particular change that I am recommending to this committee is in paragraph (b) of new section 65E and asks that the bill inserts very clearly in a proposal for a new RFT exactly what the projections are for the likely benefits on congestion.Now this is pretty important actually. I'm sort of surprised it's not in the bill because the bill has been sold to New Zealand—somewhat badly and somewhat late after the election but none the less—as being important because we need to reduce congestion. Now actually I don't think there's a member in this committee and certainly not a member from Auckland who doesn't understand that congestion is a real issue and we certainly need to be thinking creatively about how we do that but also how we fund it. I would suggest to this Government that just banging on a new tax isn't the answer to everything and it's very rarely that that's the best answer. But congestion is important.Certainly the Government has made a big focus in selling this bill about how this is important because we need to address congestion. Well OK. If that's the case Mr Twyford why is it that in the proposal for an RFT scheme in paragraph (b) of new section 65E it doesn't require the proposer to state the projections of the likely benefit of the scheme on congestion? I would've thought it would be reasonably sensible to say that if this is all about in fact managing congestion and is not just a tax grab for councils that frankly will always take a new tax if offered to them then you would actually require the proposal for an RFT to state pretty clearly how it's going to help congestion.Now I can imagine the reason that the officials and the councils won't be keen on that because of course that would have to make them accountable. And when Mr Goff rocks along with his regional fuel tax proposal and says to Auckland that he simply has to have it to reduce congestion I think this House should expect Mr Goff and the Auckland Council and subsequently other mayors around the country that if they're going to claim that this is a congestion-relieving mechanism to put their money where their mouth is and tell us exactly how much congestion it's likely to address. And I bet you they won't want to. They'll talk a big game when they get the new tax in and they'll sort of talk in loose terms about reducing congestion and "Won't this be a wonderful thing and it's all about freeing up our arteries." but actually ask them to put a line in the sand about how much congestion—New Zealand is paying another 11.5c a litre on top of the other taxes and petrol price increases—is actually going to be reduced by these proposals.Nowhere in this bill—and in paragraph (b) of new section 65E—does it require them to actually project the amount of congestion that will be alleviated. How can that be the case? If this is all about congestion if it's all about alleviating congestion why is the one thing they're not required to state a projection of the congestion impacts of having a regional fuel tax scheme? So I don't think it is a big ask at all for this Government and for Mr Twyford if he's true to his word and if he's going to show us and show New Zealand that his walk matches up to the talk and that this is about congestion—I don't see why there would be any resistance at all in adding a very simple requirement in new section 65E in paragraph (b) a new subparagraph (v) saying that as part of making a regional fuel tax proposal the proposal should and will and in fact must include very clear information on the likely benefits of the proposal on congestion.Without that surely you'd have to suggest that all of that talk is a nonsense all of that talk is smoke and mirrors and the real benefit of this is simply another tax grab from the party that only knows how to tax and spend. If this is about congestion my challenge to the Government is a very simple one: show us that you mean what you say and show us that breaking your word to New Zealand about having this only applying in Auckland is as far as the deception will go. This is going to be about congestion and you're going to require a congestion assessment as part of the regional fuel tax proposal. So that is the amendment in my name. I don't like the bill—let me be very clear: I don't think the bill is keeping faith with New Zealand. But if we're going to have it—if the Government is going to ram it through without widespread support against the opposition of Aucklanders against the opposition of New Zealanders—they should at least be honest."