Lee Denise; Williams PotoDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): It's been a short journey and a short battle and unfortunately we've gotten to the point where here we are at the third and final reading before this looks likely to pass and we head into an activation this Sunday—today's Tuesday; this Sunday 1 July. It'll be D-Day. There's something very ironic is there not and almost poetic about how this bill has gone through its final stages in Parliament because it's the perfect representation of the shoddy process that has surrounded this tax throughout its development and throughout its life here in the halls of Parliament. Last week we had the committee stage. It was incredibly vigorous. As you'll know on the other side of the House it was vigorous because we were all up on our feet on this side of the House. In fact at one point Madam Assistant Speaker I was up on my feet for 2½ hours trying to get a call and didn't get one—next time next time.It's the perfect representation of what we've had going on because we tried to scrutinise it part by part in that committee stage; but what actually happened in that committee stage? We found so many flaws so many amendments to put forward that it wasn't just about the principle of the tax and it wasn't just about technically how it could be implemented and the flaws around that; it was just that the Government wanted to pass it—the Government voted for urgency so that they could pass it really quickly. It's very representative of how shoddy this whole process has been. We had to go into urgency last week and then on top of that they tried to block any more debate on it—unheard of unprecedented moves—and this is why we have some serious issues about its passage and where we find ourselves late this afternoon.The Government is putting in so much effort—an incredible amount of effort—and is willing to sacrifice some of those democratic processes and responsibilities that we have as a Parliament so that they can give the Mayor of Auckland what he wants: a new tax by this Sunday. Either that or possibly the shortened process is because Phil Twyford had enough of sitting in the chair in front of the committee for nearly 10 hours while we had to debate what the flaws were and he was possibly just desperate to get out of the chair; hence the shortened process. I'm not sure.As I said this has been a perfect representation of the entire process that this fuel tax has been through. Since it was first proposed both the council and the Government have arrogantly pushed it through step by step. They've forgone convention forgone process and the public consultation itself of course was shortened. The select committee process was shortened. Each new round showed that the majority of public opposition was strengthening; it was building. As people began to understand what was happening that opposition strengthened and it built. The only poll that was used as a mandate by both the Government and the council to ram this through was a poll—this is so ironic—that was used before we knew what the national tax fuel increases would be. They used a poll from before everyone knew what the extra excise nationwide taxes would be on top of this. We know that it seems and it appears to us that the two Phils know best. But there are some things that they don't know or maybe they've just decided to deliberately ignore and one is of course—and it was raised by many speakers on our side of the House—the cost of living. This is a significant issue and one which members of the Government's own team back in council-land have raised. It's obviously not a priority because the bill's being pushed through despite these concerns being highlighted.The Ministry of Transport itself had very little time and capacity to do research on what the impact of this particular new tax would be. We heard submission after submission in select committee—the shortened select committee process—that highlighted the concerns around this very issue. It seems to me that this should be counter to general Labour Party policy—that you could ram through a tax that impacts those who are struggling in Auckland and not pay any attention to it not have any regard for those who are struggling in society. I saw an article yesterday from the manager of Gull where he said he expects he'll be seeing queues at the petrol stations this Saturday before what he described as and I'm quoting here one helluva tax". It starts on Sunday and he said that Gull would pass the entire 11.5c per litre on to consumers. BP have also confirmed the same thing: that they'll pass on the cost come 1 July. And I expect it will be standard practice around the country. But it's not just at the pump as I was saying before where people and families will be paying; it's the increased expenditure to other parts of households and the impact that they will face.Now a colleague on the other side of the House Michael Wood from Mt Roskill quoted a friend of the National Party. He referred to the Employers and Manufacturers Association and a quote that he had come across. How about the other side of the House quoting their own party representatives—not just friends of the Labour Party; members of the Labour Party? And I refer of course to Labour Party councillor Fa'anana Efeso Collins. He was one of four councillors from the old Manukau City Council ward—so South Auckland councillors—who voted against the fuel tax. Not for it; against it. And I quote from Efeso: "This tax is taking food off people's tables." You can't get any more straightforward than that. "Our people" he said "have been paying our rates and they never never push back. Well it's time to push back."Unfortunately that memo didn't pass over to his colleagues here in the halls of Parliament. Alf Filipaina said even though he voted for the tax that his people were unanimous in their opposition to the tax. That's incredibly telling. Both councillors know that in the last few rate rounds in South Auckland South Aucklanders have been hit hard. Capital values have gone up and rates have gone up in South Auckland; so they're very aware of the impact of this particular bill. I seriously question whether Government MPs would vote for this and back this if it wasn't for their colleagues the two Phils saying that from their perspectives from their desks this is what they need to do because this seems to me very counterintuitive to what we'd expect from standard Labour Party policy.The last think I want to touch on is what I think is a deliberate skewing of what the debate is and what the debate should be about from the very get-go. What I really strongly object to is the idea that the debate is about "This or that?" The debate is: do this do the tax or you won't get the solutions. "Do the tax. You won't get the projects fixed." Phil Goff used the term "Our city will grind to a halt." He also said "If you don't have this it won't even be business as usual." Really? The idea that you install a tax or you get no projects? The idea that the Government says "Pay this or live with congestion."? That is not what the issue is and we all know it. We all know it. The Government has turned this into a debate about projects—which ones are in which ones are out—but it's not that; it's a funding debate. We had the Auckland Transport Alignment Project projects listed and so does the Government. So this is not about whether you have the projects or whether you don't. I heard from the Minister earlier on the list of all the projects that are in and that are out. We have some questions around that. For instance we'd love to know when Penlink starts. We're hearing now that it's in about 10 years a decade; not tomorrow like the inference that has been made. So if it is a funding debate and not a debate about projects then why is it that they've just gone for the easy "tax tax tax" option? Well it's because that's the standard Labour Party knee-jerk reaction: let's get to the "tax tax tax" option.In my final seconds as I did when I last spoke on this if you're looking for solutions and you're looking for solutions on funding which is what this should be about not an erroneous "tax or have no project" debate if you're looking for solutions—and the Green Party member before I spoke said "Let's help our largest city deal with congestion."—let's help them by bringing on staffing procurement—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired. Marja Lubeck I understand this is a split call."