Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by Monday, 21 May 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there’s been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I’m pleased to present this bill to the House this evening. The bill allows regions to apply for a regional fuel tax. The bill is the first step in tackling New Zealand’s infrastructure crisis, and Auckland Council is the first council to apply for a regional fuel tax. Auckland’s congestion crisis is plaguing the city. Auckland is basically grinding to a halt before our eyes. A recent report published last year, and work done by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), the economics consultancy, estimated that Auckland was losing $1.3 billion a year in lost productivity because of congestion on the roading network. Aucklanders understand that fixing the congestion will cost money. This bill is a down payment on our Government’s commitment to building a modern transport system for our country’s biggest city and backing it with funding.

Congestion is a handbrake on the New Zealand economy. Recently, I was in Kūmeu in the Helensville electorate, at a meeting held by the Kūmeu-Huapai Residents & Ratepayers Association. During the meeting I spoke to a local resident who owns a concrete supply business. He told me that he’s only able to do two deliveries per truck per day in Auckland, due to the congestion on the roads. It’s impossible for him to get across town at any time of the day, and not only does this mean that he incurs ongoing costs, paying staff to sit in traffic, but his company has to keep twice as many trucks on the road as it otherwise would need to do. Congestion is a handbrake on his business.

Stories like this are not new. Logistics companies like Mainfreight, couriers such as PBT Couriers or New Zealand Post, can tell you that the crisis of congestion on Auckland roads costs their business every single day. That’s why the Employers and Manufacturers Association, Auckland International Airport, Infrastructure New Zealand, Ports of Auckland, and the National Road Carriers association commissioned NZIER to carry out the report that I mentioned earlier. It found that if Auckland traffic could move on average between 50 kilometres to 56 kilometres an hour during weekdays, it would benefit the Auckland economy by nearly $3.5 million a day. The city’s real GDP would increase by between $488 million and $842 million. We cannot afford to continue the waste and the drag on the country’s productivity caused by the failure to invest properly in Auckland’s transport system.

The bill enables a council to seek funding for specific transport-related capital projects. The Government has indicated that at this stage only Auckland will be able to apply for the regional fuel tax. Aucklanders know we’ve got a crisis on the roads, they know it’s going to cost money to fix it, and they are up for paying their fair share if we are to tackle this problem. This bill provides the opportunity for this to happen and happen now.

The first aspect of the bill that I want to mention is that the regional fuel tax must be applied for. This is enabling legislation; it creates the opportunity for a council—in this case, Auckland—to apply for the ability to levy the regional fuel tax in its territory. This is important. The regional fuel tax must be used to fund capital projects. It cannot be used to pay for business-as-usual and operating expenditure. It is only to fund projects that will transform an area—in this case, Auckland—and ease congestion.

In 2016, Auckland Council agreed to an indicative package called the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP), and, to give credit to the former Government, they finally, after five years of going to war with Auckland Council on transport, after five years of Steven Joyce delaying the City Rail Link unnecessarily—finally the National Government sat down and negotiated a 30-year transport plan with Auckland Council. That is ATAP, the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

However, what was not agreed in that plan, or could not be agreed, was how the indicative package would be funded. The National Government left a $5.9 billion fiscal hole—that’s a real fiscal hole, not one that’s made up for electoral purposes; a real fiscal hole. They talked about having a transport plan for Auckland and left nearly $6 billion unfunded. Auckland Council said, “We can’t plug that gap on our own, it’s not possible.” Auckland Council is already up against its statutory debt limits.

💬 Brett Hudson: They could have reduced their spending. That would have helped.

I’ll come to that. They’re already up against their statutory debt limits. They do not have the headroom on their balance sheet to borrow $6 billion to plug the fiscal hole that National left. So that is why our Government comes to this Parliament with a bill to make a first down payment on plugging the funding gap in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

Auckland Council will consult on funding the package of the first decade of projects identified by a refresh of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project that’s currently under way, and I hope within a month we’ll be able to brief not only the Parliament but the public on a new set of priorities for the first 10 years of Auckland’s transport plan. It’s anticipated that the funds generated by the regional fuel tax will go to support the 10-year programme of investments under ATAP. The bill enables Auckland Council to levy a regional fuel tax of up to 10c a year. This will provide funding between $150 million and $170 million a year for urgently needed infrastructure. That amounts to a $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion contribution by Aucklanders, through this regional fuel tax, to the modernisation of the Auckland transport system, that is so desperately needed.

The problems of Auckland cannot be entirely solved by Wellington. Auckland needs to step up and actively work with central government to set the priorities and to take ownership, and it’s only fair, if extra revenue sources are going to be generated from Auckland, that Aucklanders have the ability to have a say on the setting of those priorities. This is why the bill does not specify individual projects to be funded. Auckland Council, after consulting with its regional land transport committee, will prepare a proposal that identifies projects to be funded, and then will engage in a public engagement process intended to result in a high-quality proposal that’s been worked through and tested from a range of perspectives. It’s critical, from our point of view, that Auckland Council builds public support and brings the community on board through this process.

The bill enables a tax that will apply to petrol and diesel, but for no more than 10 years. The period of time gives Auckland the funding certainty that it needs to plan and deliver major projects, but it requires the council to go back to its citizens and to Ministers if it wants to go beyond 10 years.

I want to say that there are a number of people, including the National Party’s transport spokesperson, who say that this tax is not needed because Auckland Council should just become more efficient and cut its costs. That is laughable. To think that Auckland Council can cut costs in order to fund a $6 billion fiscal hole left by the former Government is ridiculous.

One of the big challenges that our country faces is helping our high-growth cities, particularly Auckland, to grow. Without much greater investment in transport, we’ll never reduce the crippling costs of congestion. We cannot invest at the level that’s needed if we are to rely on this year’s tax take through the National Land Transport Fund; there just simply isn’t enough money in the fund. We need to lift our level of ambition and invest in transport infrastructure to get ahead of the growth, and to do that we need to find new sources of revenue from Auckland to support this investment. Enabling Auckland Council to levy this regional fuel tax is a down payment on that challenge by this Government. This bill is a vital first step to resolving the transport crisis on Auckland’s roads. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, surprising as it is to the members on the other side. This really nuts down to a very simple philosophy, because, really, if we want Auckland to get ahead and to meet its challenges of infrastructure and well-being—well-being for its citizens—what we really want is Auckland and Aucklanders to thrive, to get ahead. We want business growing, we want people having opportunities and getting ahead. The coalition Government’s answer to what you do to help Aucklanders succeed and get ahead, to help businesses grow and people do better, is you tax them more. That is what this does—it simply imposes a tax on individuals and businesses operating within the Auckland region.

Well, I’ll remind the Minister of some very wise words from Sir Winston Churchill, who remarked, “Trying to tax your way to prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle.”, and that’s exactly what this bill seeks to do. It is an absolute travesty. It is a complete misunderstanding of what generates success, wealth, and prosperity in a nation, and, actually, it’s not required.

But before I get on to the council and how it should be discharging its financial responsibilities better, let’s take a look at the bill. The bill’s going to establish a framework, an ability, for a unitary or regional council to request to levy a fuel tax in its region or area. There are a lot of considerations that need to be made around that, such as its link to the regional transport plan, to the Government policy statement on land transport. It’s certainly not without its rules, but let’s look at what it is and how it is applied.

So, yes, as the Minister pointed out, it applies to petrol and diesel fuel, but not to certain other fuels such as compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas. But here we go: he said it can only last for 10 years. Well, that’s a little disingenuous. It can only last for an initial 10 years, but it’s the council that reviews, before its expiry, as to whether it should be extended longer. It may be required. It may ask all sorts of people and stakeholders what their views are, but that’s a very different prospect from those stakeholders deciding whether or not it gets extended. Just another example of a Government that’s never found a tax it doesn’t like creating a new tax that could actually go on for a long, long time. I suggest, if they ever have the opportunity—and we’ll be working hard to prevent that—it would go on into perpetuity.

But here’s a little thing—I do hope this bill could be defeated at first reading, but, just if it isn’t, here’s a wee thing I noted—that I would hope the select committee will look into with some degree of scrutiny: apparently, the fuel tax will be collected at the distribution level, the point where the fuel is supplied by a distributer to service stations and commercial storage facilities. Here we go: a Government that doesn’t understand the fuel industry, its distribution methods, and, particularly, its retail end.

Really, there are three principal means under which fuel will be retailed to consumers at a station. The first is the station will be company-owned, so it will be the company who’s distributing the fuel who pays the tax when it delivers the fuel to its service station—that’s fine. But the other two will either be a franchisee who pays for the fuel upon delivery and gets a higher commission rate or profit margin for that, or it will be what’s known as an agency model. That’s where the retailer doesn’t actually purchase the fuel at the point of delivery, which is the point when the tax falls due, but instead pays the cost of each litre to the distributor, the fuel company, the day after it’s sold. So think about that. The way I understand this is written up means that that retailer will be obliged to pay the fuel tax when the tanker comes along at night and drops 30,000 litres into their tanks, but it will be some days or even up to a week before it can actually sell that fuel and recover the tax from the consumers and therefore actually cover the costs. And these are small businesses—small businesses. That’s going to kill their cash flow.

The Government doesn’t care. They don’t care at all, because they’re not concerned about that. Their view is that a country can tax its way to prosperity. So they are not concerned about that at all. I would ask, if this goes to select committee, for them to look at, and actually look at changing, this travesty.

But there is a very good reason that New Zealanders could have every right to expect that this bill will not go to select committee. The reason they could have every right to expect this bill will not make it to select committee is because of the integrity of New Zealand First and its MPs. Absolutely it is that, because, for years, New Zealand First, led by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has railed against taxes on taxes on fuel. For years, he’s been on the public record, time and time again, saying it is an absolute disgrace that the Government levies GST on fuel taxes. He thinks that’s terrible. For years, he’s said that we should remove the GST on the taxes on fuel. But here we go: in this bill, this regional fuel tax is subject to goods and services tax. So we can look forward to—the people of New Zealand can look forward to, later on this evening or maybe the next sitting day—Winston Peters and the New Zealand First MPs—because they are people of integrity, they will stick with the position they have had for years and they will vote this down, because they don’t believe in a tax on a tax, they don’t believe in GST on petrol taxes. So I look forward to them casting their votes there.

But now let’s get to why this bill isn’t actually necessary, or shouldn’t be. The Auckland Council—well, Auckland has challenges; that’s unquestionable. But let’s look at the spending growth in the council over the last four years: $800 million—it’s up $800 million. Now, that’s easily enough to service a $6 billion gap that Mr Twyford talked about. If they would just get their spending under control, they wouldn’t need to tax their citizens, their residents, more.

💬 Andrew Bayly: They can’t help themselves.

No, they can’t. It should be tightening up its own spending, not simply looking to a Labour Government to get it more money.

But here’s even worse: this allows other councils—other authorities—to also request for regional fuel taxes, so this could be new regional taxes across all of New Zealand. Now, it is true that they can’t put those taxes into effect until 2021, but there is another little piece of disingenuous behaviour by this Government. They went into the election and came into Government pledging no new taxes to be implemented before the next election—they would campaign on them, they said. Well, this bill actually puts in place the mechanism for those taxes and craftily tricks New Zealanders by saying, “Oh, well, it’s not really a new tax because it can’t come into effect until 2021.”—but they are legislating for it right now. They are creating the tax. They’re going to be tricky and make sure it doesn’t come into effect outside of Auckland till after the election, but, make no mistake, this is a new tax. They have backtracked on their pledge already. We’re seven months into a term, and already they’ve backtracked on the pledge of no new taxes and here’s a new tax across all of New Zealand.

It’s a regressive tax. They have always claimed to be the party of the workers of New Zealand, but this tax will hurt working New Zealanders more than anyone else. They like to believe that working New Zealanders don’t have cars. Well, that’s simply not the case. As officials pointed out, lower-income earners are more likely to live further from the destinations they need to reach, whether that’s for work or for their own leisure and family commitments—they will travel more. That means a fuel tax will hit them more, because they travel further and on lower incomes. It is deeply, deeply regressive. It is a disgrace that a Labour Party—that a Labour-led Government—would actually impose a tax which they know will hurt lower-income earners most.

Talk about chardonnay socialists. Sitting in their ivory towers, pontificating what the little people of New Zealand need, and the first thing they do in tax is they come out and they stiff them with a deeply regressive tax that is going to make low-income earners in New Zealand worse off.

It’s a bad bill. It’s a bad bill because it’s unnecessary. It’s a bad bill because it just helps greater wanton spending by our largest unitary council. It’s a bad bill because it creates the framework to deploy that all across New Zealand. And it’s an absolutely disgraceful bill because it stiffs the hard-working New Zealanders who work so hard and who can least afford this. I oppose this bill.

How quickly that member has settled in so comfortably to the worst aspects of negativity that characterise an Opposition. Listen to him bleat on about the things that he is opposed to, that he doesn’t like, and that he doesn’t want to see. But where’s his vision? Where is the vision of the Opposition? How do they propose to solve the $6 billion hole that they’ve left behind in Auckland transport—unfunded for 10 years; that lack of infrastructure—it’s a disgrace. That negativity.

The member says, well, he just wants Auckland to get ahead. He spent some time waxing on about Auckland getting ahead. This situation currently, as we have it in Auckland, sees Aucklanders sitting in queues in their cars going nowhere—that is not getting ahead; that is the opposite of getting ahead.

The interesting thing is that businesses want it—businesses want it. The other interesting thing, though, is Mr Hudson was right in one respect. He was optimistic on one point, and I found it very telling. He talked quite a bit about the initial duration of 10 years. He said that this was not limited to 10 years—this was his argument—because Auckland could come back in 10 years’ time and ask the Government to renew it; democracy in action. The wonderfully optimistic thing that he has in that assumption is that it will still be a coalition Government on this side of the House in 10 years that will be making that decision. So I want to thank him for his optimism in that respect, because that is the one high point in what was otherwise a very negative speech. He’s anticipating a Government that would honour this in 10 years’ time and want to see it continued if that’s what the people of Auckland wanted.

Let’s not forget that this is about what the people of Auckland want. This process requires the council of Auckland—democratically elected and empowered by new Subpart 3 to be inserted into Part 2 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. It enables them to have a proposal that sets out a tax rate and come to central government requesting support. The democratically elected council of Auckland requesting support for a proposal that would benefit their citizens. It doesn’t get any better than that in terms of making sure this is about doing what Auckland wants, and Auckland wants to have the infrastructure. Aucklanders are tired of sitting in traffic, and I don’t blame them.

I want to talk about, briefly, when I was a young thing living in Auckland. I grew up in Auckland. It’s a dark secret for the member for Dunedin North to confess that he was born in Auckland and grew up there, but it’s true.

💬 Hon Member: You’ll be kicked out.

I grew up south-east of the city, in a little village called Beachlands. Fine place—it’s still there. It looks very different from when I lived there, I have to say.

💬 Hon Member: A very good place.

There were open drains, there were baches, and people walked to school in bare feet. And when I’ve visited since, I have to say—the honourable member opposite is the local MP, and I’ve seen him about his business there. It’s now quite a wealthy place, it’s fair to say. Its local citizens have nice neat kerbs around the footpaths, and they have quite high incomes, and they have a golf course, and they have a marina, and so on.

But when I was a child of 16 or 17, as I learnt to drive, I would drive into town 20 kilometres through farmland on the open road, and typically drive at around 100 kilometres an hour—I’ll say “around” to preserve my reputation as a cautious and circumspect individual. Then I would enter the motorway at Ōtara, and I would drive into town another 20 kilometres, also at an open road speed, because that was possible not so long ago, when I was a young man. Not very long ago at all, and yet now—now, a few years on—it would be impossible to drive to town in the one hour it used to take me to get into town from Beachlands.

It would take a lot longer than that. I hazard it’d be pretty difficult to do it in an hour and a half. It’d be difficult to do it in an hour and a half these days, and that’s because the motorway is clogged up. It’s because of urban sprawl. It’s because there’s a cost to growth when the appropriate infrastructure is not put in place, and meeting the marginal cost of growth is what this plan is all about. It’s about making sure that the infrastructure is put in place to support the growth of a growing city. And so I’m thrilled that we’re putting this in place. I’m thrilled that we’re putting it in place to solve Auckland’s problems. It is a disgrace, though, that that $6 billion hole was left by the previous Government.

This regional fuel tax won’t apply to natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. It just applies to petrol and diesel. It will be collected at the distribution level. The funding will be going towards capital expenditure and associated debt repayment. It will have a maximum rate of 10c per litre of fuel and that maximum duration of 10 years that we covered off earlier, and it could be reviewed by the council before expiry if the council wishes to extend it. As we’ve noted earlier, the optimism of the member opposite that it would be a receptive Government to that at review is noted and on record. But the modelling says that this could result in an additional $150 million to $170 million a year to spend on infrastructure. That will make a real difference to a city that has been brought to a standstill by the failure of planning by the previous Government.

I think Aucklanders as a whole will be grateful when they have the option, also, of alternate forms of transport, because there’s nothing more regressive than sitting in a car. If you don’t have a lot of money, you’re sitting there, chewing through the petrol in the tank and going nowhere. New Zealanders, and Aucklanders in particular, want to be going somewhere. They want, as small-business people, to be able to travel around and meet other people. They want, as ordinary citizens, to be able to live a good life in a world-class city, and this bill facilitates Auckland as a world-class, competitive city where businesses can choose to locate. A world-class city requires world-class transport infrastructure, so that citizens at every level can get about the city, can make their contribution, and can enjoy the life of a good, international, competitive city.

If we think about great cities around the world, it is a common feature that they invest in infrastructure. I can remember visiting Germany, visiting Berlin, about a decade ago, and the cranes everywhere as that city expanded. It has become a city that is celebrated for its great infrastructure. I can remember visiting Barcelona when I was a young man, and la Sagrada Familia there being built up. I’ve seen photos since, and it’s gone further—that icon that draws people from around the world, that makes them proud to belong to a city with great infrastructure. Great infrastructure is a feature of truly great cities.

It’s important to note that this bill holds Auckland Council to account, as well. They will be accountable. They can’t just start projects. They’ve got to complete them on time, they’ve got to complete them on budget, they’ve got to come with a plan to joint Ministers, and the bill provides Crown oversight of the revenue raised, to make sure that things are being delivered on as expected and to make sure there are tight controls on the use of revenue. There’s a ministerial review procedure and ongoing public reporting to provide transparency to the public.

It’s a very good bill, and I congratulate the member on bringing it to the House. It’s thorough. It is a bill that lays things out clearly, that provides clear accountabilities so that those who are contributing can see the benefits of the infrastructure they are contributing to and so that they can take pride in helping to build a truly great city. It stands in stark contrast to the previous Government’s failure to invest in infrastructure and to the frustrations that Aucklanders feel today and that those of us that visit the city regularly on business feel.

I know that when I travel to Auckland, I can schedule two, three—maybe four, if I’m lucky—meetings, depending on how far I have to travel across the city. When I’m in Dunedin I can schedule 14 meetings in a day. It’s just a different world, and I don’t think that Aucklanders should have to suffer because of the visionless nature of the previous Government. I think this bill brings us finally into the 21st century, to have a 21st century city that has vision, that has clarity about its future, that knows it can afford the infrastructure it needs, and that can look forward to becoming a greater city still.

I congratulate the member once again on bringing this bill to the House, and I look forward to seeing its progress through the House. I look forward to seeing Aucklanders enjoy the infrastructure they deserve, but were deprived of by the previous Government. This is a great bill, and I recommend it to this House.

I was sitting there thinking to myself, “How do we know that the country has a Labour Government in charge?”—sorry, a Labour - New Zealand First - Greens Government. The way in which we know that we have a Labour Government in charge is that you have Minister after Minister, and I’m sure more MPs, too, excited about taxing people more. The pure joy in their eyes that they’re going to have to put another tax on Aucklanders, put another tax on New Zealanders, and show the country how they can raise money to do all of these great things that they’re going to do—Phil Twyford is the Messiah. He’s delivering thousands of houses, apparently, in Mount Albert. He’s about to deliver, apparently, light rail into Mount Roskill—I’m sure Michael Wood will be happy. He’s going to deliver us to the promised land, but it’s going to cost us a huge amount more money, and we know that the Labour Government that we have in charge, despite the fact that they went into the election opposed to any tax increases this term, are going to be delivering that.

This is a bill that we are seeing where the Labour Government is putting more tax on Aucklanders. Don’t be ashamed in looking into the detail of this, I say, fellow members, because when you do look into the detail of this bill, what we see is that it’s going to mean more money for Aucklanders to have to pay, over and above what they already do. The council won’t be accountable, I’m sorry, David Clark, because, actually, what message this sends to the council is that they don’t need to tighten up their spending, they don’t need to rein in their costs. The fuel tax will be an additional amount of money that they can spend on transport, and they won’t tighten up their budget further, which is what they should be pushed towards doing.

I say to the Minister of Transport that this tax isn’t actually necessary. The reason why it’s not necessary is that this tax will raise less per annum than the Auckland Council’s costs have been going up year on year. For the past four years, the Auckland Council’s costs have been going up by, on average, $200 million a year. This tax will raise about $150 to $170 million a year. That’s less than the council’s costs are even going up. So if the Government was wanting to send a message to Aucklanders, and send a message to the council about what they should be doing with transport and prioritising their budgets, they’d be saying, “Mr Mayor, you went into the election promising to tighten up the council’s budgets, to get the costs under control. We expect you to deliver those savings for Aucklanders before we’re going to give you another opportunity to tax.” But the first opportunity that they’ve had to pass transport legislation in this House is to reach in for another tax.

Here’s the other big revelation with this bill. This isn’t just about Auckland. I heard David Clark talking about his deep dark past growing up in Beachlands and being an Aucklander. He talked in his speech a lot about Auckland. But, actually, this bill impacts on the rest of the country. The new revelation for New Zealanders out there is a regional fuel tax isn’t just going to be constrained to Auckland. The Labour Government’s coming after your fuel taxes for the rest of the country as well—because, by 2021, this bill shows us very clearly that there are going to be fuel taxes in the future for other parts of the country.

So not only is Auckland being told they can let their budgets go—they’ll have the ability to tax and spend more—other councils are going to be lining up for that too. So I say to ratepayers around the country, you should be afraid of this bill, because it’s going to lead to more taxes on motorists around the country as well.

So the question will be: what’s this regional fuel tax going to be spent on? There’s one area on which there is a bit of detail, and it’s a good thing to see. It’s the fact that there is quite a stringent requirement on councils to outline what the projects are, the costs and benefits, when it’s going to be delivered, and, apparently, according to David Clark, that’s going to cause them to be quite accountable.

But the interesting process we have going on right now is that the Auckland Council is consulting on the fuel tax right now. In their budgets, right now—the consultation closes tomorrow—the Auckland Council is consulting on whether there should be a regional fuel tax. Apparently, 50 percent of people are saying there should be; 40 percent of people are saying there should not. But what the council’s not doing is telling anyone what the regional fuel tax is going to be spent on. They’re asking Aucklanders to fly blind and just blindly sign up to this new tax without even telling people what the regional fuel tax is going to be spent on.

I say that the Minister’s endorsement of that process and the council’s way in which they’re going about it—it is a way in which they are misleading Aucklanders, that they’re going to deliver them to the promised land with the transport projects, but they’re not even telling them what it’s going to be. I want to know, as an Auckland ratepayer, as an Auckland MP, what are Phil Goff and Phil Twyford going to spending this additional money on? They haven’t told us.

They haven’t fronted up with the details.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: ATAP—ATAP.

Well, you haven’t even delivered the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) yet. He’s been a Minister for about six months—hasn’t delivered a Government policy statement yet, hasn’t seen any regional land transport projects being delivered, and hasn’t seen ATAP change yet. They’re still operating off the old plans that we put in place.

So I think the Minister should front up with the projects. The Minister should front up and tell Aucklanders what he’s going to be spending on and go out there around the country and tell New Zealanders about how important roading projects that are going to deliver economic development, that are going to deliver time savings and actually keep people safer—go around the country and be honest and tell New Zealanders about the roading projects that he’s cancelling.

Because he’s not only going to tax Aucklanders more; he’s going to tax the rest of the country more in 2021, if he’s still around. He’s going to cancel a huge number of important projects, all to deliver the tram-set down Dominion Road—the tram-set, which, in today’s dollars, is $3 billion. I guarantee you, by the time that’s finished, that’s going to cost you a huge amount more—closer to $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion, maybe even $10 billion.

This fuel tax is going to hurt those who can least afford it, as well. Because when we delve into the regulatory impact statement—when we delve into the detail—we also see that the people most impacted by this are those living furthest away from the city centre. Typically, according to the data that we have, the people living furthest away—say, in South Auckland—are the ones that will have to pay the most, and they can afford it the least. They’re also the people that, typically, if they are renters, don’t currently pay the interim transport levy.

So those people are going to be taxed more. They’re the ones that can’t afford it as much as others, and they’re the ones that’ll probably see the least benefit, because, I have to tell you, light rail, a tram-set running down Dominion Road, is going to do nothing for the people living in South Auckland.

So those MPs that are going to be standing up in this House telling us about the great transport levy and tax that’s going to be put in place, that live in South Auckland or live in North Auckland—go and have an honest conversation with your constituents.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

You can have an honest conversation if you want too, Madam Assistant Speaker. But those MPs should have an honest conversation with their constituents, because they’re putting more taxes on those constituents, all to fund that tram-set down Dominion Road.

I also want to talk about the fact that in new section 65D, inserted by clause 5—and I want to see us delve into this more in the select committee—there are words in there where this regional fuel tax should only come into force if the capital projects “cannot reasonably be fully funded from sources other than a regional fuel tax within the time frame desired by the council.” Those are very interesting words. And I wonder if the Minister’s actually considered the words that he’s used in that particular section. Because what that particular section says is that the regional fuel tax should be the option of last resort. And I actually agree with that. Taxing people more should be an option of last resort.

So if that wording continues in the bill, and the Minister’s going to be sitting there honestly assessing whether the regional fuel tax should be implemented after the people of Auckland have been properly consulted with—because they haven’t been at the moment—is he going to honestly assess whether these projects cannot reasonably be fully funded from other sources other than a regional fuel tax?

Because I submit that councils around the country, including the Auckland Council, have the ability to fund transport without needing this tax. They just need to tighten their budgets. In fact, they already have a transport levy in place. One cannot say that these capital projects cannot reasonably be funded from other sources when there’s already another source in place. So I hope the select committee delves into that properly as well.

I hope the select committee delves into price spreading, because we know from experience in the 1990s that price spreading does happen, and it will happen in this case as well. New Zealanders around the country, probably closest to the borders of Auckland, will be paying more in petrol prices because there’s a fuel tax in Auckland. If you live in Huntly, or live in Waikato, there’s a higher likelihood that you’ll be paying more in fuel as well, because there’ll be price spreading from the companies. We also know that there’ll be avoidance happening as well, and the regulatory impact statement suggests there’s about $20 million lost.

Finally, my final point is that I think this should go to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It is a transport matter. I’m sorry that Darroch Ball, the chair of that committee, has no confidence from the Minister. That committee should be looking at this, because it’s a transport issue. It shouldn’t be going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—

I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call on this Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill 2018. A regional fuel tax is the quickest, most efficient way to raise funds to invest in Auckland’s transport. It will provide additional funds to a region to pay for transport projects that would not otherwise be funded, or would be delayed. The previous speaker, the member for Botany, mentioned the joy in our eyes when we talk about tax. We actually have joy in our eyes when we talk about making things better for New Zealanders, and sitting on the road for hours on end definitely does not bring joy to their eyes.

This bill is the first step in tackling Auckland’s congestion crisis. Now, we know the other side of the House doesn’t like fuel taxes. They’ve made it abundantly clear. It’s exactly the same story—like a broken record—as their story in 2009. I’ll come back to that later. Lots of promises were made on funding projects differently, other than putting a fuel tax in—except that they never did.

So there’s lots of rhetoric about wanting businesses and people to thrive. They’re making, you know, promises about making things better for people, except for the fact that they don’t have the funding and they don’t have any answers on how to fix that massive, deep hole.

So we said in 2017, in the election campaign, that we would implement a regional fuel tax in Auckland. So the member for Botany is wrong that we said we wouldn’t; that was part of our election campaign. And we won’t be able to invest as needed otherwise. We can’t rely on the tax through the National Land Transport Programme. This bill sets up a process to establish a regional fuel tax and provides that, until 2021, Auckland will be the only region to have a regional fuel tax.

The Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill will enable Auckland Council to raise funds for specific transport-related projects, as investment in infrastructure is well overdue. Auckland’s current infrastructure simply can no longer support the city, and to be a world-class city, as we’ve heard before, Auckland needs world-class transport infrastructure.

Auckland Council understands the frustration of ratepayers who spend so many hours of their lives stuck in traffic, whether it is people just getting to work or school, or businesses struggling with access for their staff, their suppliers, and their customers.

The member Mr Hudson mentioned people not being able to do the things they want to do because they have to pay a fuel tax. We are saying they can’t do the things they want to do because they’re sitting in traffic, and the amount of time spent in traffic is a huge financial toll on people using these roads. So there’s a financial toll and there’s a personal toll. Everyone leads busy lives, and on top of having our busy lives, we now spend time watching the traffic lights, watching the cars in front of us, waiting and waiting for that traffic jam to start moving. There’s a loss of quality time in our lives. When you think about workers quite often doing several shifts in a day, they are actually now stuck at their place of work because they can’t get home to spend a few hours with their families. They are, basically, stuck at the place that they spent the shift in.

So on top of Auckland’s traffic gridlock, we’ve heard from members previously that the gridlock has cost our economy about $1.3 billion per year in lost productivity. There was another quite incredible fact that I learnt reading through the material, and it said that if Auckland traffic were to move a mere 6 kilometres faster during weekdays, 6 kilometres per hour—so from an average of 50.5 kilometres per hour, they move to 56.8 km an hour—that benefits the economy by $3.5 million per day—$3.5 million per day by going 6 kilometres an hour faster. Now, we acknowledge that Auckland is not the only region where there’s a critical and urgent need for transport infrastructure, but, at this time, the focus is on Auckland. We also don’t believe that people will travel out of Auckland to get the fuel, because Auckland has large boundaries, and you wouldn’t sit in a traffic jam for hours just to go somewhere else and save five dollars on filling up your tank. People need access to the things they need, whether it’s jobs, education, or community.

I talked about the businesses and how without access to the market, without access to customers, it’s impossible for existing businesses to thrive. The other side of the House talks about not implementing taxes but wanting businesses to thrive, but how is the other side of the House proposing to get the customers to the businesses and to get the suppliers to deliver the goods to the businesses if they can’t get through the gridlock? And what about new businesses? Why would any new businesses choose to go and locate in an area that has known issues?

I would like to talk about my own electorate of Rodney to give an example of some of the horrendous traffic congestion that makes this bill so necessary. The Whangaparāoa peninsula has huge problems with businesses getting their products to the market. There’s a massive lack of access to get the goods they need to their businesses, and, on top of that, like many other areas in Rodney, the area of Whangaparāoa peninsula, including Millwater, Dairy Flat, and Whanganui, is earmarked for extensive residential as well as business development, and once that’s finished, there will be another 147,000 more people with access to State Highway 1 but solely through the State Highway 1 Silverdale / Hibiscus Coast Highway intersection. It will make that really bad congestion issue even worse, and the traffic is already not coping as it is. It will heavily impact not only on the residents but also on that Silverdale peninsula business community, because of that difficulty of access and delivery firms restricting service.

Now, there’s a project that could potentially be funded by this fuel bill, and I think it’s important to mention, because the member for Botany mentioned the tram-set. This is not just about the tram-set; this is about roads that will get people moving. It is a project that will make a huge difference in the lives of so many people, and, quite frankly, it’s crucial to the economic development of the district.

💬 Simeon Brown: What road? What road?

The residents of the area of Whangaparāoa peninsula and Silverdale have for a long time advocated for the need to ease congestion on that peninsula. There’s a very important health and safety issue as well, because there’s only one way to get in and out of that peninsula. If the road is blocked, everyone is trapped. The project is called—the member for Pakuranga was asking—Penlink. It’s a 7-kilometre long road to link the Whangaparāoa peninsula to State Highway 1 at Redvale. It would include a bridge across the river. It will provide a second access road. It will help boost the roading capacity of an area with growing employment and a growing population. It would unlock the economic advantages of the area, which currently have no way of flourishing, and I’ll tell you why.

Labour was going to build that Penlink road, with a regional fuel tax—guess what—in 2008, but they were voted out, and what do you think? The National Government in 2008 did not like that fuel tax, so they took over and, nine years later, nothing happened, except that the regional fuel tax was cancelled by the National Government and Penlink was taken off the national roads register—nine long years and nothing happened for the people and the businesses of Whangaparāoa peninsula and Silverdale, who continue to struggle with the congestion that the National Government never did anything about for nine long years.

Then came the election in 2017, and guess what? The then National Government made another election bribe, and it announced it would pick up Penlink in a new funding package, only it hadn’t allocated that funding and it also didn’t have a defined timeline. It sort of makes me think back to the 10 bridges up in Northland. I don’t think any of those bridges were built ever, were they? Not one. Was it also an election promise? That’s right; it was a by-election promise in 2015: “We’ll build you the bridges—except that we never did.”

I just want to read, for context, this press release, headed: “National Party Commits to Penlink”. It says, “The National Party has announced it is committed to building the Weiti River crossing, commonly known as Penlink, within 10 years of becoming government.”—from National shadow Minister for Transport Maurice Williamson. It goes on, “National reiterated the party’s commitment, made during the 2005 election, that the Penlink project is to be completed within 10 years.”—this was 2005. It goes on, “It describes the project as vitally important to [the] economic development of the district.”—except they took the fuel tax away, they had no money to build it, they shelved it, and the people are struggling.

So, anyway, what we are doing with this bill is we are providing the mechanism to establish the fuel tax so regions have the ability to fund these important projects. The bill will ensure Aucklanders will get action in resolving the congestion. The cost of doing nothing has been incurred for far too long. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

💬 Jamie Strange: Oh, here we go!

Here we go: Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. We oppose it—we oppose it. I think that we’re going to be talking a lot about tax this term, aren’t we, while we’ve got a Labour Government. We’re going to be debating tax a lot, I can see it. I can feel it in my bones. So they’re going to apply a petrol and diesel tax, not LPG, collected at distribution level, 10c—the maximum of 10c—a litre, and have it over 10 years. Labour: “Let’s tax this.”

But what are they going to use it for? They’re going to build a tramline from the Auckland CBD through the Prime Minister’s electorate, as they promised in the by-election—over $2 billion worth. The last thing Aucklanders need is a new fuel tax making it more expensive to get to work, school, and around the neighbourhood. Fuel tax—it’s not as necessary that this Government’s just letting Auckland Council off the hook for its runaway costs; current funding shortfalls should be the responsibility of council, maybe with some central government help.

Auckland Council’s spending has increased by $800 million over the last four years. The increase in the wages bill alone over that time is more than this fuel tax can raise in the first year. This Government’s solution is to let Auckland Council tax its way out of this problem. Labour has promoted this policy as an Auckland fuel tax, but this bill opens up the ability for other regions around the country to introduce fuel taxes by 2021.

This legislation will encourage the same tax-and-spend behaviour at the local level as we’re seeing from this Government. Unlike other new taxes Labour is proposing, there is no standard select committee process, not even a working group, given the time line that Phil Twyford is working to. That’s really surprising given the Government’s love of working groups. Parliament is being asked to rush this bill through the House. That’s becoming a common theme of this Government. The Ministry—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Too much rushed legislation and too many working groups!

Yes—ha, ha! The Ministry of Transport—you can’t get it right. You cannot get it right. The Ministry of Transport impact report says a cost-benefit analysis has not been done and that fuel companies have not had time to accurately quantify the costs of collection of this regional fuel tax. The consultation process has been a sham. Under a National Government we were able to live within our means while still investing in major projects such as the Waterview tunnel—three lanes each way, not two—rail electrification, and the western ring route. Regional taxes impose significant compliance costs to businesses and road users and would result in much higher fuel prices for motorists in some regions.

I want to quote chief executive of the Road Transport Forum, Ken Shirley. He says, and I quote, “the imposition of a regional fuel tax is a retrograde step that will hinder rather than help the Government’s infrastructure plans. … [They are] a complete nonsense … They are inefficient, full of loopholes and exclusions and therefore the impact on motorists is often inequitable and the revenue gathered underwhelming.” So lower-income—[Interruption] Fairness and equity—fairness and equity—let’s talk about that. Lower-income households will contribute a higher proportion of their income to the tax compared with higher-income households. The New Zealand Automobile Association estimates that the Auckland fuel tax will add an extra annual $135 cost for the average motorist. Darryl Evans from the Māngere Budgeting and Family Support Services, chief executive, said the city’s poorest families will be amongst those hardest hit as the new tax increases petrol prices. [Interruption]

OK, in New Zealand a regional fuel tax framework was put in place in the major urban areas in the early 1990s and was repealed after price spreading occurred between the regions. For some of these reasons I’ve outlined—and I’ve not outlined them all; I’ll leave it for other speakers—we oppose this legislation.

Just before I call the next member, I just want to encourage members in the House—we have been a Parliament this term for six months, and I would encourage all members not to read speeches.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I think that the speeches from the Opposition tonight really demonstrate why we’re in the situation we’re in, which is one of a massive infrastructure deficit. The National Party are apparently opposed to investing in infrastructure. You can’t really have it two ways. You can’t really be complaining about Auckland Council increasing its costs and spending. You can’t complain about—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

One can’t complain about raising a regional fuel tax and then also say that one believes in investing in infrastructure. It’s just not possible. Why? We have to pay for infrastructure, but ironically, strangely, the National Opposition, who are so opposed to a regional fuel tax, were quite happy with raising fuel taxes across the country—successive years when they were in Government—and then spending most of the money on just a few urban highways, mainly on the fringes of Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, Wellington, and Tauranga, where they promptly made congestion worse. So they managed to spend billions of dollars, congestion is no better, and people are spending heaps of money owning cars, stuck in traffic, and paying for fuel. What this Government is simply doing is going back to that very sensible proposal that we campaigned for, actually, in 2007, so that we could invest in electrification of Auckland rail network: a regional fuel tax, which enables the Auckland Council to raise revenue to help close the funding gap because—I’m sure no one over there in National who lives in Auckland has noticed this—actually, there’s been massive population growth in Auckland, and we have to invest in infrastructure so that people have a way of getting around the city.

Now, we have to do more than that. We have to invest in housing, and it’s a shame that the National Opposition didn’t find it in their hearts to care so much about low-income people when they were in Government, because if they had they may have done something about the housing crisis in Auckland. They may not have spent so much money on tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders and they may have actually done something about public transport in Auckland, safe walking, and cycling, all of which make it easier for people to get to jobs, to get to school, to get to where they need to go.

The Green Party supported the regional fuel tax when it was initially proposed back in the 2007 Budget, because it was going to be spent on desperately needed public transport improvements for Auckland. Happily, although the National Party got into power and they cancelled the regional fuel tax, they weren’t able to cancel the electrification of the rail line, which they probably would have done if they could have. They ended up delaying it by several years and now we have a situation where we’ve had massive growth in the population, massive growth on the rail network and on public transport, and we’re way behind where we need to be.

So this Government is doing everything we possibly can to catch up, but the reality is these sorts of infrastructure investments take years to plan and fund and get underway, and our rail network is going to be at capacity before the City Rail Link is done, because the National Party failed to invest in the City Rail Link when we knew it was needed several years ago. That project should have been started in 2015, and shame on National for ignoring the evidence and failing to invest in the City Rail Link. It’s going to be a mess for years because of National—their short sightedness.

In fact, it’s not like New Zealanders weren’t paying tax. Oh, they raised fuel taxes all over the country, so people in Southland were paying more fuel tax even though most of the money was going on some urban fringe highways. So that’s how much we can believe the National Opposition when they complain with all their little, you know, speaking points about why this bill is so bad. No, this is good. We need to get on with it. We need to get back on track. I’m extremely proud to be supporting this Government, which is finally going to take a sensible approach to transport investment and invest in the complements to the road network. What we need are better local roads, better-maintained roads, safer roads, and people in our towns and cities need alternatives—

💬 Simeon Brown: Auckland Council’s cutting its maintenance budget.

—so all those of those short trips that they’re making, like kids going to school, their kids might actually be safe—

💬 Simeon Brown: It doesn’t make them safe. There are more potholes.

—walking and cycling to school, and then that would take heaps of cars off the road at peak time and free it up for those people who need to drive. I don’t know if the member opposite who’s trying to barrack me very gently has ever noticed, but actually there’s not really that much congestion during school holidays and so if we could actually prioritise safe walking and cycling around schools, we would save tons of money, we would save the time that people are wasting stuck in congestion, we would reduce air pollution, we would reduce carbon emissions, and we would improve the health of our kids. Now that is a sensible policy and it’s just a shame that his party didn’t do anything about it for nine years.

We are finally going to be investing in the rapid transit network that Aucklanders have told us that they want. Yes, that includes rapid transit along Dominion Road from Wynyard Quarter all the way to the airport, actually finally providing rapid transit to some of the South Auckland communities that have been neglected in the past nine years. It’s going to go straight through Māngere and it’s going to provide fantastic transport options all around the city. Of course, we’re going to have a south-east connection to the airport as well. We’re going to have a north-west connection. It’s an absolute travesty that the New Zealand Transport Agency was widening State Highway 16 and didn’t even put a busway on it—didn’t even put a busway. All that work for what? People are still stuck in their cars, stuck in congestion.

I don’t want to talk about these crocodile tears from the National Party about the lowest-income people, who they’ve never really shown any concern for before. But it is worth noting, because I know there have been concerns from people who actually genuinely do care, that perhaps a regional fuel tax is regressive. So let me explain why that is not the case. One might think it’s the case, but actually it turns out that the highest-income households own the most cars, they spend the most time driving, they’re the most likely to drive at peak time. Low-income households own fewer cars, even though the cars are older they tend to be smaller and, in fact, even the older, small, inefficient cars consume less fuel than the top 10 brand-new cars that are being imported right now into this country. So, actually, the people who are going to be paying the most fuel tax are not the lowest-income people.

Now what is regressive is car dependence. Car dependence is when one does not have options. They are not able to access employment, education, or other opportunities without using a car, and that means that households have to own more cars and it ends up costing them a whole lot more money than if they have fast, integrated, affordable public transport as an option, or safe walking and cycling. On top of that, car dependence costs us a lot more in terms of the land that is tied up for storing all the cars, because there are three to four empty carparks everywhere in Auckland right now—everywhere in New Zealand right now—for every one that is being used. That’s all the result of car dependence and it means that we have higher land costs, and that’s part of our problem with affordable land for housing within the Auckland urban area—those regressive parking rules that massively increase the cost of land, housing, and transport because people have to have a car just to get around.

So I am very proud to be supporting this bill, which is just one part of a very comprehensive plan to offer New Zealanders real choice—real choice—and that’s going to be better for them, it’s going to be better for businesses, it’s going to be better for the climate. It is a massive win-win. It’s better for the economy. I know that Ken Shirley has no idea how the economy really works. He just does a show for a couple of trucking companies and is probably just a fan of spending lots of money on a few ridiculous motorways. But even his own members are going to benefit from this policy and that’s why it’s so popular. It’s actually, across the board, doing what people in Auckland have asked for. It’s going to be popular outside of Auckland because people can look around and see that Auckland is actually going to be paying its fair share for its population growth and for its infrastructure. That’s why it’s an excellent policy and I think it’s an absolute shame that the National Party Opposition can’t see this, but someday—someday—you will thank us, because I know you also live in Auckland.

I rise to speak on the Land Transport (Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. Now, the previous speaker, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, talked a lot about the importance of infrastructure. We all agree infrastructure is particularly important to the economy. A sound infrastructure is crucial to a sound economy. There’s no dispute. For that reason, the National Government, in the past eight, nine years, when National was in Government, spent heavily on infrastructure. During the last year, the last campaign, we promised a large number of major road projects, but the new Labour and New Zealand First Government cancelled most of them. So this leads to a few questions about this particular bill.

Firstly, what will the money raised be spent on? They are not particularly interested in roads. We do not have the answer at this stage, right, but they do not like roads particularly, so most likely it will be spent—the money—on trams. These trams are very expensive—

💬 Simeon Brown: Very slow.

—and also very slow, and also many Aucklanders may not necessarily benefit from this huge investment. So this is a question: what will the money raised from the regional fuel tax be spent on?

The second question is: is this the best way to raise money for infrastructure in Auckland? Well, 10c per litre means more cost for motorists in Auckland, right? More cost means less travelling, less economic activities, which means a less active economy. That in turn means that the economy may well go down. So a better way is to make sure we have a fiscally transparent and fiscally restrained, responsible central government and also local government. In this case in particular, we need to make sure Auckland Council spends their money responsibly. Now, Auckland Council’s spending has increased by around $800 million over the last four years, right? An increase in its wages bill alone over this time is more than the fuel tax would raise in its first year.

Now, I would like to read a few figures here. A report came out on 5 October last year and it says, “One in five staff at Auckland Council is earning more than $100,000 as the wages bill for the Super City blows out for the third year in a row. What’s more, the number of executives earning more than $200,000 has increased by 25 percent in the past year, from 155 to 194 … The council and its six council-controlled organisations … employ 11,893 staff, of whom 2322 earn more than $100,000. [In comparison] Brisbane City Council … employs about 8000 staff, of whom 149 earn more than A$100,000.” This report just says that Auckland senior staff “have always been diligent in budgeting very generous pay increases for themselves”, and “In the past three years, the wages bill at Auckland Council has blown out by tens of millions of dollars each year. Council set a budget of $811 million in the past year and [it] spent $853 million on wages.”

So that is the spending of Auckland’s council, and if we could control the spending of Auckland Council, then we’d have enough money to improve Auckland transport, and that would be much more beneficial to Aucklanders, Auckland, and Auckland motorists. Of course, there are many other issues here, including the fairness issue, because the lower-income households would benefit less from this kind of investment and spend more, largely speaking, because of low income but also because they tend to live further away from the city centre, or CBD, and therefore the fairness issue is another problem with this bill. Therefore, I oppose the bill.

Hallelujah! We have a Government that has ideas, for a change. We have heard no ideas tonight from the Opposition. Yes, they have been opposing the bill. They’ve been talking about tax and they’ve got all their arguments, but we’ve had no fresh ideas. That’s the reason why, in the election last year, the country voted for change: because they want fresh ideas.

I have never lived in Auckland, but from time to time, I do have the pleasure of travelling to Auckland. It used to take around an hour and a half to get from Hamilton to the centre of Auckland. Fairly reliably, you could do it in an hour and a half at pretty much any time of the day. Now, you’ll be lucky to get from Hamilton to the centre of—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. My apologies. Now, the average commuter would be lucky to get to the centre of Auckland in three hours. That’s because of the transport issues, and that’s why we’re here tonight debating this bill. I am pleased that we have a Minister who has some fresh ideas—some fresh ideas to fix the transport crisis that’s taking place in Auckland at the moment.

There’s a little bit of a saying in Hamilton that when you travel to Auckland, yes, there’s a nice new motorway to get there, but you get stuck in the “Great Southern Car Park”, which is the Southern Motorway, and, regularly, you just crawl your way into the city. So there’s no doubt that there are issues around transport, and I am proud that we have a Government who have some ideas—some clear ideas about how we’re going to fix this.

Now we’ve heard from the Opposition. We’ve heard from one of the members—it was a quote from Winston Churchill, which was kind of unusual, about being stuck in a bucket, unable to lift yourself up. Well, the reality is the reason why we’re stuck in a bucket is because of the previous Government’s inaction on transport and housing in Auckland. We’ve heard about taxes—we’ve heard about taxes; we have. How many taxes did the previous Government bring in? Eighteen new taxes—18 new taxes. Yes, this is a tax, but it’s a tax that will make a clear difference to Aucklanders. It’s a tax that Auckland businesses in particular want. We are a Government who will work with businesses. We won’t just tell businesses and others what to do; we will actively work with business.

This bill will make a real difference for business. Thomas Goldsby, who’s a professor at Ohio State University—around business, he says, “Transportation is a major contributor to the economy and a competitive force in business. It is the activity that physically connects the business to its supply chain partners, such as suppliers and customers, and is a major influence on the customer’s satisfaction with the company … [It’s] among the more vital [aspects of a business].”—among the more vital aspects of a business.

This bill here will help businesses in the following ways: it will enable access to markets for customers and workers. Every time we have someone stuck in a car, they’re not adding to the economy, and we’ve heard that from both sides of the House, so we must get the traffic moving in Auckland. This bill will do that, and that will help businesses. This bill will give people access to the things they need: jobs, education, and a sense of community. We want to make it easier for businesses to expand to new markets, to take on more workers by providing a world-class transport system that enables workers and customers to get to those businesses and those businesses to get their products to the market.

As we know, businesses don’t just work in silos; we’re connected, and transport is the key aspect that connects businesses to other businesses, that connects businesses to their customers, and that connects businesses to their suppliers. I am proud that this is a Government who will support businesses by providing a world-class transport system in Auckland. This bill will do that. Businesses have told us that we need this bill. We will listen, and we will act, because this Government has fresh ideas that will work. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand tonight to oppose the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. This is, quite simply, poor, rushed legislation. It makes a mockery of the Auckland Council’s current feedback.

The legislation has very interesting timing. On the one hand, we have Auckland Council, who are asking Aucklanders to have their say. They’ve got a fancy website. It’s called “AK Have Your Say”—it’s a great little rhyming website there. They outline their proposed plans for a 10c per litre regional fuel tax over 10 years. They have a little animated video that you can watch, with a snappy little jingle. They also have another video that’s got some little vox pops from people, who say what they’d like to see, and then you’re asked to have your say: do you support it, do you not support it, or something else.

On the other hand, we have this legislation enabling a regional fuel tax for 10c a litre plus GST for 10 years. Ha! Well that sounds very familiar. Isn’t that exactly what Auckland Council are proposing and asking Aucklanders to have their say on? So why are we introducing legislation to give Auckland Council exactly what they’re consulting on with the public right now?

One could deduce from this that this decision between the two Phils has already been made. It sounds like “AK Have Your Say” should have been “AK Our Way or the Highway”. Maybe it’s purely coincidental. Maybe it’s purely coincidental that these two things are happening at the same time, but the most obvious answer is usually the one that is the most obvious. You wouldn’t be dreaming if you think that this bill is predetermining the outcome of council consultation.

So I’m really sorry to all of those people who’ve headed along to “AK Have Your Say” and have watched the snazzy videos and listened to the snazzy jingles, and who took time out of their day to fill in the feedback forms. It may well have been for no reason at all, because if someone opposes this fuel tax on the website—I hate to break it to them—it ain’t looking good. If they thought that the council should be reining in their costs, instead of increasing taxes, and putting in place this regional fuel tax—sorry, mate. This legislation is completely arse about face.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

That’s been said 130 times in the House. I checked before I wrote it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): It doesn’t matter. I’m still calling you to order.

Thank you. The most important thing here is that nothing in this legislation shows where the money will be spent. That is the single most concerning thing, or one of the two most concerning things: which projects should be prioritised? Without knowing any of the projects, Aucklanders are being asked to have their say on a regional fuel tax, and we’re here tonight to legislate for that regional fuel tax to fund projects that nobody has any information about.

On this snazzy little vox pop video that Auckland Council have up on their website, people say things like—these are direct quotes from them; they could be actors, but they seem to be real people—“If they use the money to build more cycleways, I can cycle to work.”, “We need trains and trams running 24 hours, more frequent buses and trains.”, and “Have your say.” But the point is we don’t know which projects are going to be funded through this regional tax. We’re being asked to sign a blank cheque that isn’t made out to anyone. The funds collected may very well go to pay for a tram through the Prime Minister’s electorate.

From the perspective of the people in the East Coast Bays that I represent, this is very concerning. The people in my electorate have felt, for a very long time, that they have been neglected by Auckland Transport while work on roads, trains, and other public transport systems are invested in around the city. We have a load of projects that require urgent attention, including the Glenvar Road realignment project, which I’m currently fighting for. You can go to www.GlenvarRoad.co.nz to sign a submission form.

While, on the face of it, a regional fuel tax may sound reasonable, we don’t actually know which projects are going to go ahead and which ones are going to be prioritised. So, for the people in my electorate looking at this and thinking it sounds reasonable, I say to them that you are quite likely signing a blank cheque and may well get nothing out of this.

Marja Lubeck talked about the peninsula in her electorate—another perfect example of my point.

💬 Simeon Brown: It’s not her electorate.

No, it’s not her electorate—that’s true—but it’s the electorate that she stood in. The point is that Penlink has been talked about for years. It’s not something that accidentally came up under the National Government. For nine years before that, it was talked about under the Labour Government, and they didn’t do anything, either. So it’s very rich.

Another really important—

I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

This bill is about unlocking the growth potential of one of the world’s great cities: Auckland City—a place that I am proud to call home. And yet all we hear from the other side of the House is an anti-growth agenda—a group of members of Parliament who don’t understand the potential of our biggest-growing city, who don’t understand that 59 percent of New Zealand’s growth over the next 30 years is going to happen in Auckland, and who don’t understand that since the amalgamation in 2010 Auckland has grown by 180,000 people and that every single week 900 new people make Auckland their home. And because we’re a great city, because we’re a growing city, we have to take the steps that are required to harness that growth for the benefit of the people of Auckland and New Zealand, and not let that growth smother us.

But all we have from National Party MPs, like the Waldorf and Statler of the East, and “pull up nappies”, Mr Ross and Mr Brown, is an antediluvian 1950s view of what you need to invest in for a growing city. Let me tell those members for free over there what this regional fuel tax will fund. For the first time in decades there was agreement between central and local government about how we will plan for Auckland’s growth and how we will get our city moving.

We will do that by building a world-class, congestion-free network. What that means is finally investing in the high-quality, modern public transport that every single self-respecting First World city in the world is investing in. I would invite those members to just lift their sights a little bit. Maybe take a little bit of travel the next time you have an opportunity and look at what the successful cities of the world are doing. Look over the Tasman to Australia, where Sydney, the Gold Coast, Brisbane, and Canberra are all investing in modern light rail. Look at the great cities of North America. Look at the great cities of Europe. The way they invest in growth is with high-quality public transport that moves thousands of people quickly, cleanly, and efficiently.

We have a challenge in Auckland. We have a problem, a congestion problem, that is costing us $2 billion in lost productivity every single year and that is costing Aucklanders endless frustration and delays, every single day. Today, four crashes on the Auckland motorway network—

I apologise to the member, but the debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.