Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill contains two amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The first amendment will increase the level of excise duty paid on petrol by 5c a litre, excluding GST. The second amendment provides for the proportion of excise duty or excise-equivalent duty allocated to the National Land Transport Fund to be indexed to inflation. The Consumer Price Index All Groups, excluding credit services, will be used for this indexation.

Outside the provisions of the bill, but closely associated with the measures undertaken, the Government will also, by Order in Council, make an equivalent increase to the road-user charges payable by diesel vehicles weighing 5 tonnes or less.

The Investing for Growth strategy announced in December 2003 was designed with a strong focus on improving the governance of transport in Auckland in particular as a significant economic centre, and also to fund regional transport funding throughout the country. Good transport systems, however, cost money, and this bill is about ensuring that there is money now and in the future to make improvements to land transport.

During the progress of this bill through the House, motorists have faced significant hikes in pump prices. Political uncertainty in oil-producing parts of the world has pushed up the global price of oil. The Government is sensitive to the extra costs motorists face at times of high oil prices. With this in mind, the Government has proposed an amendment to the original bill, which is supported by the Finance and Expenditure Committee in its report to this House after considering public submissions on the bill. We need to balance the need for improved transport systems and the need for businesses and family budgets to manage the increase. The amendment will mean that the increases in excise on petrol and excise-equivalent charges cannot be introduced before 1 April 2005, and it allows for increases to be imposed at a later date by Order in Council. The extra money urgently needed for building better national transport systems will come from this increase, but the timing of the increase can be at the discretion of the Government.

The bill also provides for the excise and excise-equivalent duty allocated to the National Land Transport Fund to be indexed to inflation from 1 April 2006. This provision remains unchanged. In the past, successive Governments have had to pass new legislation every time increases in the excise tax on petrol were required. At no time was this legislation ever referred to a select committee. The House must be aware that in the case of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, this is the first time provisions that will increase the price of petrol have been referred to a select committee. The select committee process provides for members of the public to make submissions on legislation being considered. I am pleased to say that 16 submissions were received by the Finance and Expenditure Committee that considered the proposed legislation.

Some submissions were concerned about the impact of an increase in excise duty and road-user charges and inflation-indexing on consumer spending. Firstly, Treasury has calculated that the impact of indexation on inflation will be extremely small. Officials estimate that it will add 0.014 percent to the consumer price index. That is within the margin of error.

Taking a longer view, the benefits of building a better transport system are vast and measurable in terms of strengthening businesses, and also, at the local level, making it easier to move within cities. Together, the increases in petrol excise and road-user charges will generate approximately $207 million annually, excluding GST.

I note that a number of the submissions to the select committee objected to the increase in excise, because it was claimed that the funds were raised for Auckland. Those claims are wrong. The revenue collected will be distributed according to current population and projected population growth, and all around the country, regions will be allocated funds for land transport according to population. While Auckland receives 35 percent of the additional funding, the remaining 65 percent will be distributed proportionally around the country. This is based on Auckland having around a third of New Zealand’s population.

This Government is acutely aware of the need for additional investment in land transport nationwide. We believe that the fairest method of allocating funds for land transport is by population-based distribution. On the basis of population, $1.3 billion will be distributed over the next 10 years to areas outside Auckland. This means, for example, that my part of the country, Hawke’s Bay, will gain approximately an additional $70 million. The Canterbury region gains $252 million. Wellington gains $219 million. Further north, Northland will receive $73 million. Auckland will receive $716 million, and $900 million from the consolidated account.

I emphasise to this House and to members of the public that all additional funds will be dedicated to land transport and allocated under the National Land Transport Programme. Submitters to the select committee were well aware of this. The provisions promise to improve land transport systems, roads, and local networks.

We all know that after many years of neglect by National, our land transport was near breaking point and becoming unworkable. This was impacting not only on the personal lives of many, but also on the economic, social, and environmental life of our nation. Companies complained that their domestic freight was stuck in traffic, as the roads were clogged. People running businesses were sitting in traffic. That is bad for productivity, and this Government is determined to turn this round to keep New Zealand competitive.

The bill is designed to provide a more secure funding base for improvements to land transport. Only with a dedicated revenue stream, indexed to inflation, can we all be confident that our land transport will receive the ongoing improvements it will need. We are a growing and vibrant country, and land transport is a vital infrastructure that must never again be deprived of investment. This legislation ensures that investment funds will be available now and into the future. It shows a far-sighted approach to our country’s land transport that we have not seen before. The Government is committed to investing a massive $18 billion in land transport over the next 10 years to rebuild the country’s neglected infrastructure. The provisions of the bill are part of a wider package of growth and innovation measures that the Government is undertaking to support business and to build a strong, competitive nation.

If the people of New Zealand ever want to get a sense of what the Labour Government is really like, then I strongly suggest that they pick up a copy of this bill. They will see, to the core, what this Government is really like. This Government is quite happy to mislead the public. It is so political, it does not care what it has to do to get there. It has the Karl Rove philosophy of politics: do whatever it takes, but do not necessarily tell the public the truth or deliver results.

I do not want to spend any time reflecting on Rick Barker’s speech, because it was just such a waste of time. I will not even dignify it with much comment, except to ask why, if he really believes he has the vested interests of the public at heart, he sold out to the Greens and signed up to the Land Transport Management Act in 2003. Why was he so flaky on that stuff that he was prepared to have walkways put where cars go? [Interruption] No, that is absolutely germane to the debate, because this Government is so flaky about this sort of legislation.

I want to talk to the Minister. He would be shocked himself, as I am sure he is not up to speed on what will actually happen under the bill. First, the bill allows the Government to index increases in petrol tax whenever it likes. So, year in and year out, it will be indexing increases. That is very interesting. This Government is happy to pass on costs through indexation. It is more than happy to tell the people of New Zealand they will be paying, year in and year out, for the effects of inflation through the price of petrol. It has no problem with building in inflation. The Government wants its revenue stream inflation-proof; that is Dr Cullen’s message.

The funny thing is, though, the Government is absolutely not happy with that approach when it comes to income tax. It did not want a bar of United Future’s proposal to index taxation thresholds. It wanted the support of United Future for confidence and supply, but did not want a bar of indexation when it came to the revenue stream. That is why one in three New Zealand policemen pay the top rate of taxation, as do one in four secondary school teachers—because they have been robbed of any benefits through inflation. But when it comes to its own income, the Government has no problems at all taking money out of the pockets of pensioners and everybody else through inflation.

The Government had the absolute gall to leave the petrol tax element out of its press release on this bill in December 2003. The Government forgot to tell the public. When it was found out the following February, it made lame excuses, saying that it had forgotten to mention the news—it was a mistake, an oversight; not intended and not deliberate—when the Prime Minister announced the Auckland transport package. That is the way this Government wants to treat the people of New Zealand.

Very interestingly, we have an Auckland package—backed by the 5c a litre petrol tax, which I will get to—for this reason and for this reason alone: the Labour Party president, Mike Williams, knows absolutely nothing about transport. He is on a whole bunch of flaky boards. I will have a lot more to say about Mike Williams in the months ahead, and that will be a very interesting debate. Mike Williams, the Labour Party president, picked up Transit’s 10-year programme and happened to notice that 17 out of the 20 projects were in Auckland. He did not like that. He was going around electorates in other parts of the country, saying that he did not like the fact that 17 out of the 20 projects were in Auckland. He wanted something done about it. Lo and behold, he got himself on the board of Transfund, as he did with many other boards—and we will come back to his remuneration in due course. He overrode everything to do with those 17 projects, and Auckland ended up with three—three, when Auckland had ground to a halt, and people on the north-western motorway could have got out of their cars while they were listening to the Minister’s speech and walked faster than they could drive. It was an absolute disgrace. The Government could not allow that, but it could not have the 17 projects. It had to come up with another plan for fixing Auckland’s roads, so it decided to just send the bill to the taxpayer.

That was all going OK until Ōrewa I, when all of a sudden the Government lost its big lead in the polls. It started getting a lot more nervous when that happened. Then it had to come up with a very good excuse for not introducing a very unpopular petrol tax—because Mike Williams cares more about the Labour electorates than about fixing Auckland’s roading problems or fixing productivity. The Government came up with its flaky excuse.

In response to a supplementary question to a question Peter Brown asked in the House, Michael Cullen told us that—lo and behold—he was suspending the introduction of the petrol tax. Why was the Minister doing that? He said it was because of the rising price of oil and the burden that would have on the New Zealand community. I told him that it was a good answer—I respected that answer—and asked at what level the Minister would not put the petrol tax on, and at what level he would put it on if the oil price dropped. He did not have an answer to that question. The problem with answering it is that any number specified could coincide with a date 3, 4, or 5 weeks out from an election, and the one thing Dr Cullen does not want to do is defend a flaky position set up by Mike Williams 3 or 4 weeks out from an election. So, lo and behold, there is no answer. That is why we cannot define whether the level would be oil at $35 a barrel, $40 a barrel, or $45 a barrel—because the Minister does not know. It depends not on the price of oil but on the week of the election, and that detail is really hard to write into legislation.

So in this bill the Government is giving the Minister of Finance permission, without further recourse to the House, to put a 5c petrol tax on whenever he wants, with no time or date limit, ever. He could do that in 15 years’ time if, God forbid, he were still in the job. I could do that when—as no doubt I will be—I am Minister of Finance in years to come. I could do it with no recourse to the House, any time I wanted to.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Dreams!

Aucklanders are dreaming when they think they will get their roads fixed—that is the dreaming bit.

That is exactly what the legislation does. It says that the Minister of Finance can put the tax on for whatever reason he or she wants, whenever he or she wants, at any time in the future. That is the truth of it. The Government cannot write into legislation that, subject to 4 weeks before fighting an election, it will put in a very unpopular petrol tax forced on it by Mike Williams because he is on a lot of flaky boards pumping out Labour Party policy. The Government is unable to write that into its legislation. [Interruption]

I am sorry for Lynne Pillay, because that is absolutely the case. Her constituents will not be getting anywhere near to getting around their electorate, because their roads are not being fixed. The roads cannot be fixed, because local authorities do not have the money. They do not have the money, because this Government, to its core, is prepared to do whatever is political.

When I listened to the submissions on this bill, I asked the people from Treasury to tell me about the work they had undertaken for Dr Cullen in relation to what would be the appropriate price at which the petrol tax could be implemented.

💬 Peter Brown: What was the answer?

Interestingly, I say to Mr Brown, the answer was that some work had been done on that issue for Dr Cullen. The interesting thing about that answer was that a couple of weeks earlier I had asked Dr Cullen in a question for written answer what work he had had done and whether he could supply it to me. The answer was that he did not seem to think he had had any written work done on that. Then I pushed the officials a bit further—but I do not blame the officials; they are just there as puppets for the Minister. They said, really, that Dr Cullen wants us to have this. Dr Cullen wants this provision. The poor officials were put up like little lamb chops for the sacrifice. There was no work done, no rationale for it, and no logic behind the provision. Like little lamb chops to be put on the barbecue, the officials were put in front of the National finance spokesman to be rotisseried, because they did not have a reasonable answer to a reasonable question.

I started my address with one very simple statement: this bill demonstrates to the core what the Labour Government is all about—doing whatever it takes, doing whatever has to be done, and breaking whatever arms have to broken. But to fix the problem of fixing Auckland’s roads, people should vote National. That is how Auckland’s roads will be fixed.

Let me make it quite clear: New Zealand First is totally opposed to this bill, because there is absolutely no justification for it. It is not fair or necessary to saddle the motorists with an additional 5.6c in tax—that is, 5c goes into the tax coffers and 0.6c is GST. So it all goes into the tax coffers. It is an absolute outrage.

I think the Minister told us that this move would result, on average, in something like $207 million in revenue per year over the next few years. I point out to the Minister that the Government now takes 18.475c for every litre of petrol. That money goes into the consolidated account and it would equate, over a 10-year period, to something like $7 billion. The national land transport strategy tells us that over a 10-year period, the Government would collect from motorists and various other sources something like $18.7 billion, including the revenue that comes from this additional tax. The two taxes are segregated into national distributed expenditure and regional distributed expenditure. From memory, I think the Government stated that the figures for regional distributed expenditure—this tax, effectively—would amount to $2.8 billion, and for national distributed expenditure it would be $15.1 billion. On top of that, the Government would take an additional $7 billion, or possibly a sum closer to $8 billion, to go into the consolidated account.

New Zealand First says that the Government should use that money first. Just about every political party in this House advocates some form of tax concession, some sort of leniency towards the taxpayer. The exception would be the Greens. I think they want to tax a little bit more, do they not? United Future, ACT, and certainly National want to ease up on tax, and New Zealand First also suggests that the tax take in this country is too high. How do the political parties that support this bill—and I am aiming particularly at United Future—justify saying in one breath that taxes should be cut and a bit given back to the public, then saying in the next breath that it is OK to tax motorists more on their petrol and to index everything to inflation? How do they justify that? I cannot. I cannot look motorists in the eye and say that on the one hand I want to tax them more but on the other hand I want to give them back a bit more in some other area, when I know that the Government already takes a huge amount of money from the petrol motorist.

💬 Jill Pettis: But it gives it all back.

That member will vote for this bill, but, with due respect, she is absolutely clueless. Does she not know that 18.475c per litre of petrol goes into the consolidated account, and not back into roading? [Interruption] I can assure her that I am correct. I can enlighten her a little bit further. That amounts to in excess of $600 million a year.

💬 Jill Pettis: We spend it.

We spend it on anything but roads. The other day the Prime Minister said in her statement to this House that road funding has not kept pace with roads and road demand. She was absolutely correct in that remark. Over many, many years all Governments have seen fit to take money from the motorist and spend it in other areas.

💬 Gordon Copeland: What’s New Zealand First’s policy?

That is a good question, and I will tell the member. There is a second part to the equation. It is the way we fund roads. I suggest to the honourable member that at some time or other, most buildings, houses, commercial buildings, residential buildings, and farms have a mortgage on them. In other words, the owner borrows against future income. Most vehicle owners lease their cars or use hire purchase. I am not in a position to say exactly how many, but a significant number of people lease cars or pay for them by hire purchase. In other words, they borrow against their future income. Yet with roading we operate on a “pay as you go” system.

We should look at roading in this country in a more businesslike fashion. We know that it has been starved of funding and that it needs an urgent injection of capital. I have just illustrated that the $15.1 billion to be collected by the Government over the next 10 years, which is to be dedicated to roading and transport matters, plus the other $7 billion I have referred to, which goes into Dr Cullen’s pockets, should be used to advance roading in this country. What will happen as a result? It is all very well for my colleague Harry Duynhoven to mutter, but he knows that the Allen Consulting Group has said that it is worthwhile borrowing for roading.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Will the member answer a simple question? Where is the other $7 billion going to come from under your proposal?

I would say to the honourable member that the Government has such a large surplus, it does not know what to do with it. I am not suggesting that the 18.5c goes back in one chunk.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: The member didn’t answer the question.

The member asked me a question and I am answering it. I am not suggesting for one minute that the 18.5c per litre of petrol goes back to roading in one chunk, but it should be phased in. It could be phased in, and the Government could tell local authorities, Transit, and the people involved in construction and roading to put up a business plan and fund this roading on advanced income. New Zealand First would support that.

New Zealand First says that if there were a commitment for all the money that was taken from the motorist to go back to roading, there would be no need for borrowing. On a phase-in basis, I believe—and my New Zealand First colleagues support me on this—that there is a need for borrowing. However, the economic gains, as illustrated in the Allen report, would be huge. The Government would pay the money back with any reasonable form of interest. The Allen report indicates, for example, 6 percent interest, 8 percent interest, and 10 percent interest. The Government could pay loan back the loan, and the gains for this country would be huge, particularly in regions where roads need to be upgraded.

When it comes to funding transport, roading, and those sorts of things, we had better start thinking in a 21st century type of manner. We are past the days of “pay as you go”, and the Government ought to start thinking that it has no right to sit on the motorist’s dollar to the detriment of the roads. People are dying on roads that should have been upgraded years ago. The member Jill Pettis shakes her head. She does not believe me.

💬 Jill Pettis: Stop being silly. He can’t do anything.

I suggest to the honourable member that she look just south of the Bombay Hills to see the problems we are having. That road should have been upgraded years ago. Its upgrade is now planned.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: We’re doing it.

The Hon Harry Duynhoven acknowledges that, so I thank him. Umpteen people have died on that road. I know that the intention is to do something, but it is a good example of roading problems that should have been addressed years and years ago.

Roading in this country has been starved of funds. Here we have the opportunity to address the problem in a businesslike manner, without adding to the costs of the motorist.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What about tolling?

The member raises a good point. I could keep going for another half an hour on tolling. There is no need for tolling. That would come on top of this lot. The member laughs; he thinks it is a joke. Those members clearly support tolling. Those members would say that as it is good enough to rob motorists of $7 billion it is also good enough to put 5c on motorists’ petrol and toll them.

On behalf of my colleagues in New Zealand First, I say that the bill is not necessary, it is not fair, and there is not one iota of justification for it.

I assume that Peter Brown from New Zealand First flies everywhere, because it is obvious he has not driven over any of the roads that are having major work done on them. If one drives from Wellington to New Plymouth, through the area where I live and which I represent, and through the area my colleague Harry Duynhoven represents, one has to factor at least 20 extra minutes into the road journey. I make that journey by road, and I know that my colleague Harry Duynhoven does so from time to time. We do not have any other option sometimes. We have to factor in at least a quarter of an hour extra to cope with the hold-ups because of the massive amount of roadworks that are going on in the lower and central North Island region. There is also roading work going on in Auckland. In fact, massive expenditure is going on at present on roads right throughout New Zealand, and I have to say to Mr Brown: “Get off the plane and drive around New Zealand.”.

I think I would be surprised—amazed, in fact—at how some Opposition members run their household budgets, given the bizarre statements they make about how this Government should be spending its income. I know that Mr Key runs his budget very well—he can afford $2,000 Georgian clocks to sit on his mantelpiece. My constituents have to live on that sum for more than a third of the year. [Interruption] Oh, £2,000, he said.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: $6,000.

Well, that is half a year’s income for some of the constituents in my electorate.

We should be very sensible about this issue, because it is important. Let us stop saying we should spend like there is no tomorrow. The fact that New Zealand is in its current economic situation is because of prudent financial management, not because we have been spending like there is no tomorrow. I bet Mr Brown has more than $500 in the bank. If that member practises what he preaches, why does he not draw it out? Why does he not spend it all? Because that is precisely what that member is suggesting. I think we should stop some of these ridiculous, irresponsible statements about spending every cent of income the Government has. We are investing money in roads, and I am very pleased to see that, and obviously I am very pleased to be seeing it in my region. The distribution of funding for roads is equitable right throughout New Zealand.

This bill is important because it will help us to achieve more flexible funding for transport projects, and it will help us to expand the objectives of Transit and Transfund, which are doing an exceptionally good job and are planning well for the future. Some of those Opposition members would, I think, in a private moment agree and say: “Well, yes, there are more roadworks being done now than there have been in more recent years”. This bill is forward-looking, and it is based on—

💬 Bill Gudgeon: But only piecemeal. When are you going to seriously invest in roading?

There is no piecemeal roading going on in our electorates. Very planned and considered roadworks are going on in our electorates. This is a good bill. It is forward-looking. It is about ensuring safe motoring, and we need to acknowledge the reduction in the number of fatalities on the roads that has been brought about by a number of reasons. This bill is worthy of the support of this House.

The ACT party certainly opposes the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, which we have before us here. This bill is unnecessary. It is more about smoke and mirrors and politics than any rational planning of what is needed for the very important infrastructure that is the roading network of this country. There is no question of that.

To begin with, the Government made a big hoo-ha about the fact that 35 percent is dedicated to Auckland, and then it said that the rest of the country will get its share proportionate to population. In fact, Auckland has got 35 percent of the population, so why not just say—as the Government would if it were not playing politics—that the whole lot will be done proportionate to population? But oh no, this bill is all about spin. This Labour Government cannot get away from the spin—it is just spin, spin, spin. The simple thing to do would have been—if one supports the bill, and we do not—to say that the distribution would be proportionate to population, and Auckland would have got its 35 percent. But that would have been too simple for this Government, which wants to introduce a bit of deceit and deception, it would seem.

We have had some curious contributions, and the one from Mr Brown was a classic from New Zealand First. He said we should borrow for our roads. He is opposed to tolling. Every country in the world is getting into road tolling. Australia and most European countries are using tolling. It is the modern way. The problem with our investment in roading is we have not had pricing mechanisms. When we do not have proper pricing mechanisms, for any good, we get wastage and distortions, and that is exactly why we have not had the extent of planned investment in our roading that we should have had. The best way is to have pricing mechanisms, and that means tolling and things like congestion pricing. There is no question that that would be the most sensible movement we could have in our road funding. It will not be the total answer. There will always be—

💬 Peter Brown: Does the member support network tolling?

There is a place for increased tolling, including more network tolling and congestion pricing, unquestionably, and any report that member might care to read, written by local or international experts, will draw that to his attention. Unfortunately, it would seem that he does not want to accept that point. The worst aspect of this bill, however, is the fact that fuel tax of 18.7c per litre, plus GST, is not all dedicated to roading—far from it. There is no case to increase petrol taxes further.

This bill is an absolute taxation grab by the Government at a time when we have incredible surpluses. We know that the hard yards put in by previous Governments in restructuring the New Zealand economy have enabled this Government to pick the low fruit, and, in spite of having a $6 billion to $7 billion surplus, it has found a sneaky way to grab more revenue by inflation adjustment of excise duty, as it has done with alcohol and cigarettes. So the three excise duties—alcohol, cigarettes, and now motor spirits—are now inflation adjusted. Of course, it is win-win situation for the Government and a lose-lose situation for the taxpayer.

The Government, through fiscal creep, has already breached the promise it made when it came into Government that only 5 percent of taxpayers would be in the top tax bracket. We know that that promise has been broken by fiscal creep. There are now significantly more people in that $60,000-plus bracket who are paying more income tax, and now the Government is inflation-proofing itself in respect of excise tax.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I was making the point that the ACT party is committed to increased investment in our roading network. Arguably, of all infrastructural needs, roading is right up there as the highest priority of all. The whole success of our economy is dependent upon good, efficient transport networks. We know that the chaos with gridlock in the Auckland area is costing the New Zealand economy dearly—a total deadweight cost. This Government has sat on its hands for 6 years in office, and only now, in the final year of its term, is it trying to do something about proper funding for roading.

It is a bit rich for speakers from the Labour side to try to blame our roading woes on the previous National Government, although I would say that successive Governments have not made the commitment they needed to make. The point is, however, that this bill is not the answer. This bill is not about securing sound revenue and commitment for road funding. This bill is a “smoke and mirrors bill”. It is, we know, all about Government revenue—particularly as we know that currently about half the revenue collected by Government is excise tax on motor spirits that actually goes into the public account and does not go anywhere near roading. In this Bill the Government is saying that it wants to inflation-index excise duty. That is a means by which the Government is inflation-proofing itself for its revenue, and, of course, that is to the disadvantage of the taxpayer. We have no way of knowing how much of that money will go into the roading account.

The other point that was made—and I think it is worth repeating—is that the proof that all this is about politics, rather than any genuine commitment to road funding, is the fact that it highlights 35 percent of the increased revenue for Auckland roads and the fact that distribution to the rest of the country is on a proportionate basis according to population. Well, it just so happens that Auckland is 35 percent of the population, therefore that requirement is totally redundant. We could have had a simple formula whereby all funding would be on a proportionate basis according to population, and we would have reached that same formula. But the Labour Government wants to pretend that it is actually seriously addressing the chaos it has allowed to develop in Auckland, by sitting on its hands, when that is not the case.

The other aspect is the interaction between this bill and recent amendments to the Land Transport Act, where the Labour Government has totally sold out to the Green Party members—arguably, we could say it was held hostage by them. It does not make any firm commitment to road funding. It introduces a whole raft of meaningless, nebulous concepts, like sustainability and all sorts stuff—I see that the Minister for the Environment is in the Chamber; she might like to comment—and, of course, all cultural aspects now have to have extra layers of consultation.

We saw that problem on State Highway 1, where a major upgrade was held up because of a taniwha. A taniwha popped up at the critical point. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, a taniwha emerged. We saw people on national television drawing pictures of it, depicting what it would look like, and discussing how it could be placated. The one thing we do know is that if people pay money, the taniwha goes away. We understand that Transit New Zealand did that and the taniwha went away. That is the sort of provision that the Labour Government has put into the Land Transport Act—layers and layers of consultation and meaningless, ill-defined, and nebulous concepts that will frustrate any commitment to securing a good roading network for this country.

The ACT party certainly opposes this bill. We are particularly concerned with the way the executive is bypassing Parliament. One of the principles of our Westminster democracy is that the Parliament has to approve a taxation increase. Yes, the Government of the day may well have a majority, but it is in Parliament that it has that majority. This bill bypasses that, and it gives the executive, directly, through regulation, the power to inflation-proof itself. No business in New Zealand has been inflation-proofed. The taxpayers of New Zealand are certainly not inflation-proof. In fact, the Labour Government turned down a member’s bill whose purpose was to inflation-proof taxation. Yet here we are seeing a revenue grab—and that is all this bill can be described as. It is another revenue grab by the rapacious Labour Government. It is pernicious, it is bad law, and, even at this late stage, the House should not pass it.

The previous contribution to this debate from the Hon Ken Shirley laid stress on the fact that the Labour Government has been in office for 6 years but has done nothing much about roading. I remind the House that that situation could have been a lot worse if it were not for the fact that, in the confidence and supply agreement United Future negotiated with the Labour-led Government after the 2002 elections, one of the four things we asked for was that the Government make a commitment to the decongesting of New Zealand’s roads and get on and start to upgrade them. So members can imagine how much worse the situation might have been had we not come into Parliament in 2002.

Having said that, I also say that this bill puts United Future into something of a dilemma. On the one hand, we are committed to the upgrading of New Zealand’s land transport system, and we acknowledge the need for greater investment. It is obviously needed, and it is vastly overdue. I refer to the fact that members of both the National Party and the New Zealand First party criticised the bill and said they would oppose it. However, none of them bothered to tell us what they had done for New Zealand roading during the period 1996 to 1999. The reason is that they did very little for roading, and we are now all living with the consequences. Congestion in Auckland is costing the country a billion dollars a year, and we need to fix it. Therefore, the bill, to the extent that it is taking a step in that direction, will have our support.

On the other hand, however, we believe that the overall level of taxation levied on New Zealanders is already too high. From that point of view, we have very real reservations about the additional 5c per litre excise impost that will arise from this bill. Accordingly, in line with submissions received on the bill from Federated Farmers, we believe that the increase should be offset by a reduction in personal income tax rates. United Future has been saying for about 2 years that the present tax thresholds should be adjusted to offset the increase in the cost of living for New Zealand households since 2000. That cost of living increase will be about 13 percent by 1 April this year. Accordingly, an adjustment of that sort needs to be made to the thresholds in this year’s Budget. As others have mentioned, last year I brought a Supplementary Order Paper to this House asking the Government to do that, but it turned it down. If again the Government fails to do so in this year’s Budget, then it is clear that it is intent on perpetuating a double standard. When it comes to revenue collected by way of excise duties on tobacco, alcohol, and now motor spirits, the Government insists on inflation-proofing by increasing the rates as a result of the annual increase in the consumer price index. However, at the same time, it has failed to use the movement in the consumer price index to adjust the tax brackets. It is a clear double standard, and it is not good enough.

The people of New Zealand are crying out for a reduction in income tax. The average family is indebted as never before. All we are doing, and all this Government is doing, is laying yet more burden on families. This bill will be the seventh occasion since Dr Michael Cullen assumed the finance and revenue portfolios that duties, levies, or taxes have been adjusted upwards. But we are yet to see adjustment to the income tax rates, which is clearly justified and way past due. Quite frankly, the United Future caucus has found it difficult to resolve this dilemma. In the end, we have decided to support this bill at its second reading whilst at the same time endeavouring to keep the pressure on the Government for tax reductions in this year’s Budget.

In the end, the pressing need for additional expenditure on land transport—the issue we are debating today—has won out. Indeed, the Finance and Expenditure Committee received an impassioned plea from Roading New Zealand that the 5c increase not be delayed beyond 1 April 2005. Roading New Zealand made it very clear that the group of contractors who build and maintain New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure—a group that employs around 7,000 people and has a combined turnover of more than $1.5 billion per annum—has already geared up to get on with road works. In its view, it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if that momentum was slowed down in any way. For example, Roading New Zealand has already invested heavily in road-building machinery and the like and has taken on hundreds of extra staff members, some of whom are in quite long-term training programmes, so that it can get ahead and build the roads so desperately needed in this country without further delay.

As a party, United Future has worked very hard over the last 2 years to up the tempo in that regard, and we are naturally reluctant to see it interrupted at this critical juncture. For example, we extracted undertakings from the Government, as part of the $1 billion Auckland funding package over the next 10 years, to reduce the diversion of motor spirits excise duty to the Crown bank account by about 2c per litre, commencing this year, so that those funds are made available for the desperate need we have in Auckland for new roading. We look to the Government to follow through and implement those undertakings—something that has not happened yet—but we will also continue to argue strongly that the diversion should be decreased by a further 3c to 5c, as a kind of dollar for dollar matching alongside the increase in excise duty proposed in this bill. In other words, we are suggesting that if it is good enough for the motorist to put in an extra 5c, it is good enough for the Government to make room for that as well, and to leave more of the funds that are collected for excise duty from motorists dedicated to roading works. It is rather like the system that the Government used in the tsunami disaster and in last year’s February floods—a dollar for dollar subsidy. That, again, is something United Future had a hand in. It came forward with that suggestion, and it was adopted by Government. So we are looking to the Government to at least match the contribution that is being been made by New Zealand motorists and other road users.

I also want to signal strongly that United Future is fed up with waiting for the Minister of Transport to issue the long-awaited surface transport costs and charges study, which has been promised now for around 18 months. When will that study be completed and made available to members of the public? The Government consistently claims that the diversion of excise duties to the general Crown bank account is justified when one takes into account the costs of health, policing, etc., that arise directly from the use of New Zealand roads—the accidents that occur on them, the policing of them, and all those sorts of things.

The Government promised 18 months ago that we would have a report on a study—one with the lengthy name of Surface Transport Costs and Charges Scoping Study for New Zealand—that would indicate to this House and to the people of New Zealand exactly how that money, which was diverted from the roading account into the Crown bank account, is used for roading. The Government believes—and has said it is confident it is the case—that it is all used for roading. Well, it is time, I tell the Minister of Transport tonight, that we see that report. He should be in no doubt that our patience, and the patience of the Automobile Association, Federated Farmers, and even the National Council of Women, all of which made submissions on the bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, is beginning to wear very thin. We have been waiting for this report now for 18 months, and we have not seen it. In response to repeated requests to the Government, both here and during question time in the House and around the select committee table, we are just told that it is being done and will be issued as soon as possible. How long does it take for a study such as this to be done?

As well, we look forward to seeing some progress being made on roading issues outside Auckland. Here in Wellington, the big issue for me, and for other local MPs, is whether the Transmission Gully Motorway will go ahead. We are hoping that a decision can, at long last, also be made on that within a couple of months. Part of the 5c a litre will go into that kind of project.

However, I would like to say to the Government tonight: “Please don’t take our support on this issue for granted.” We want to see the tax brackets adjusted for inflation, we want to see the 2c reduction in the excise duty to the Crown account gazetted, and we want to see the surface transport costs and charges study completed and publicised as soon as possible. I hope that our good faith in that regard is not misplaced. On that basis, we signal tonight our support for the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill.

I rise in support of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, and I want to make the point that the bill is necessary, because when we came in as Government 5½ years ago we faced an extraordinary deficit in transport infrastructure. Speaking as a member for Wellington Central, I think we felt it absolutely and particularly. We had broken-down railways. We had obsolete railway cars or train cars. We were in an absolutely appalling situation. So this 5c per litre, indexed to inflation from 1 April 2006, is there for growing the National Land Transport Fund. We want it for road safety administration. Unlike the Opposition, I have knocked on doors in my electorate and have had people tell me they are nervous about travelling up the road to the Kapiti coast because of Centennial Highway, and the lack of safety on it. They did not tell me they were nervous of being assaulted in their homes. They told me they were nervous about going on Sunday drives. Issues of road safety are very important in this country, particularly for those of us who live in Wellington. So I absolutely support continued money going into road safety administration.

My experience over Christmas, as I drove up north before I canoed down the Whanganui River, was that I saw only one idiot overtaking on a yellow line. That was a change and an improvement in what I normally face when driving on some of the highways in New Zealand. I think there has been an improvement in road safety, because it has been forced on people.

The second issue is passenger transport. This is the one issue that has been ignored, and it is why I thank the Greens. They have done a tremendous amount of work in bringing this to our attention. We are very fortunate in Wellington because I think about 33 percent of our population actually uses public transport to travel to work. But when public transport starts to fail, one starts to lose, and that has been the problem in Auckland. So we have to build confidence in the whole notion of public transport. This is what this sort of money is about—building confidence in public transport so that we have other alternatives to road. It is about changing attitudes.

Then we have to build roads; boy, do we have to build roads! We have to make the roads safe, we have to make them secure, and we have to do something about finding other ways out of Wellington. That is all work that has to be done. It cannot be done unless it is funded, and that is what this legislation is about.

I say to the United Future member that New Zealand is lightly taxed. If we talk to people who have worked overseas in other countries, and I have family who have worked in other countries at fairly senior levels of administration, they always make the point that we are ranked 12th lowest among 30 OECD countries—remember that, as we go there. But this is a dedicated tax. It is not a tax disappearing into anywhere; it is a tax for transport. But we do not take United Future’s support for granted. I therefore move, accept, and support very much, the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill.

In speaking to the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, I shall repeat what the Hon Marian Hobbs has just told this country. She has just told this country that New Zealand is lightly taxed.

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes, that’s right.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: And the senior Government whip confirms that view. That is outrageous. This Government controls 40 percent of the economy. That is darn near communist stuff. The Labour Government controls 40 percent of the economy. That is how much it spends in terms of GDP in this country—40 percent of GDP at all levels of Government. That is a high level of taxation, compared with Australia and the United States. In relation to the countries we have to compete with, that is a high level of taxation, and Marian Hobbs has just confirmed to New Zealand that this Labour Government has no understanding of taxation—none.

I am shocked that a Minister in this Labour Government can say that. I can accept that a Government could say that it will not reduce taxation, but to argue in this Chamber that New Zealand is lightly taxed is an absolute outrage. There is no way this economy can perform at the moment, with the tax burden it is carrying. No developed country in history has grown at the rate this country has to grow at if it is to close the gap in its living standards compared to those of Australia, while carrying the tax burden that New Zealand is currently carrying. The Minister Marian Hobbs needs to do a little bit of homework. As a former schoolteacher and principal she should understand what homework is all about. She should do a little bit of homework and read up on the impacts of taxation and the tax burden on the potential for economies to grow.

What was also revealing about what she said was that she wanted that money for more public transport, and for more highway patrols out there to issue more speeding tickets. I shall share with her a survey I have done in my electorate, and I have had several thousand responses. I want the Minister to listen to this. The question I asked—admittedly, this question is a wee bit loaded—in the survey was whether people believed that the Government was putting too much effort into policing the speed limit, and not enough effort into protecting us from criminals. I want Marian Hobbs to listen to the answer. I had over 4,000 responses.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please bring the speech around.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I am just wondering about what the Minister said. This is about money that will be gained through this legislation, and how it will be spent. Out of 4,000 responses—over 90 percent, and this includes even Labour Party supporters—well over 80 percent of Labour Party supporters said yes, this Government is putting too much effort into policing the speed limit and not enough effort into protecting them from criminals. Marian Hobbs thinks more of this money should go into issuing more speeding tickets.

I shall come back to the detail of the bill. Part 1 indexes the petrol tax to inflation. What is outrageous about that is that it puts into the hands of the executive a power that should reside in this Parliament. It is this Parliament that sets tax rates. This legislation gives the executive the power, through an Order in Council, issued at a time chosen by the Government—not by this Parliament. It may be just after the next election. Would that not be convenient, to raise the fuel tax by 5c just after the next election! It would not be before the election. We would hate the voters of New Zealand to have a 5c rise in petrol tax before the election. No, I do not think Marian Hobbs would do that. The executive will have the power to increase taxes, following the passing of this bill. It will do it when it chooses, and it will do it for political reasons.

💬 Jill Pettis: Gosh, fancy that!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: The senior Government whip says: “Gosh, fancy that!.” Taxation should not be levied for political reasons.

Part 2 provides for a 5c per litre increase in the motor spirits duty. What makes me so angry about this increase is that motorists in New Zealand cannot afford it. The average wage earner in New Zealand, according to OECD data, has had the highest tax increases since this Labour Government has been in office, and in fact the second-highest tax increases in the OECD. This Labour Government will up the taxes again on the long-suffering average worker in New Zealand who has to use his or her motorcar to get to work or to do anything.

Revenue is not what is holding up roading development in this country right now. Transfund had a surplus of over $100 million sitting in the bank for years, not being spent. Why? Because of dopey Government legislation that makes it darn near impossible to develop roading in this country. The Resource Management Act has to be fixed up. It has stopped roading developments in this country. The crazy, crazy Land Transport Management Act that Labour passed in 2003 is making it harder to get on with public-private partnerships and toll roads that could open up the roading infrastructure in this country. That is what this Government should be focusing on fixing up, not on taxing road users still more, because the average worker in this country is paying too much tax already.

Finally, I shall deal with the appalling contribution tonight from Gordon Copeland of United Future. Forgive me, I do not want to attack the man personally. It is the policy of United Future that I want to attack. United Future said: “Please don’t take our support for granted.” What an appallingly pathetic thing to say to this Parliament and to this Government. What kind of puppet or doormat has United Future become? United Future should take a leaf out of the Greens book. I detest the Greens policies. There is not a single bone in my body that supports anything the Greens stand for. They do not stand for green stuff. They stand for anti-business and anti-motor vehicles. The thing that unites the Greens is their absolute hatred of the multinational corporations that actually do a lot of good in New Zealand and around the world. I respect the Greens with their dopey, backward-looking, horse-and-cart arguments. At least they had the guts to stand up to the Government and tell it that if it did not do what they wanted on the crazy Land Transport Management Bill of 2003, if it did not do what they wanted on the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill in my electorate, they would not support it. Government members buckled at the knee, like the bunch of wimps they are, and the Greens got their way. The Penlink toll road was stuffed, and thousands of motorists in my electorate despise the Greens for that as they sit stuck in traffic every day as a consequence.

But United Future does not have the gumption to tell the Government that it does not agree with this legislation, that it believes New Zealanders are too highly taxed, and that it will support the legislation only if it indexes the thresholds on income tax, for example. I say to Gordon Copeland in this House—although this is not a personal attack on him—that he should stand up to this wimpish Government. He knows that it is taxing this country too highly. He does not believe the Marian Hobbs’ tripe that we are a lightly taxed country. We are too heavily taxed. Our average wage and salary earners are crippled by tax. Their lives are being deprived by the rapacious tax-gathering of this Government. United Future should stand up to this Government, say that enough is enough, and that it will support National, New Zealand First, and the other parties that are against this legislation and stop its passage.

I am rather worried about the member opposite. He spoke last week, and spoke very, very loudly although he knows there are microphones in this House, but now he is shouting in what seems to me to be a very strange way. We are rather worried about his health, because he seems to be getting more and more frenetic in his speaking in the House. Even on his own portfolio area, which, I understand, is foreign affairs, he is saying the most peculiar things that have very little to do with this country or the countries about which he speaks.

Tonight I understand that he is trying to comment on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill.

💬 Jill Pettis: You would never know.

No, we would never know. He seems to spend much more of his time railing at United Future members and at other people in this House. It seems to have very little to do with the bill itself, which is aimed at getting a more secure funding base for land transport in New Zealand.

I find his speaking rather peculiar. It seems to me that he has some sort of duty in this House, whereby he has to fill in for the rest of his party and say rather inane things. It is, I suppose, one way of filling in time, but it does not add much to the debate.

Obviously, this bill is about increasing the rates of excise duty. It is about ensuring that we have better roads in this country, and I commend our Government for addressing the problems, particularly in relation to the Auckland-Hamilton highway. I am pleased to see that the road is growing and improving and that the four-laning is improving, because for years and years there was a bridge to nowhere and a lot of inactivity on the part of the Government to which the previous speaker belonged.

That speaker just made a lot of hot air and empty noise about nothing much, which shows that he is completely out of touch with what is happening in this country. He was railing on about taxes when New Zealand is 12th lowest in the 30 OECD countries in terms of tax revenue and gross domestic product. It seems strange to me that this person should have some kind of responsibility for foreign affairs, because he shows very little knowledge of taxes and rates of taxes in other countries, whether in Australia, the United States, or Germany. I found that he was expressing a lot of hot air about nothing in continuing to rail on about the taxes in this country. The previous speaker knows that New Zealand is lightly taxed and that the New Zealand economy is progressing—in spite of him, and certainly not because of any policies his party may have.

In fact, his party seems to have no policy. We keep hearing more and more hot air, and it does seem to me—and that speaker exemplified this—that when one has nothing to say, one says it louder and louder. One tries to overcompensate for the fact that one has nothing to say by speaking louder. I have mentioned before, and I keep reminding the previous speaker, that members do have microphones.

It is also obvious that real economic issues are in the too-hard basket for his party. He is not really prepared to come to grips with concrete arguments about the economy but would rather talk about the personalities of other people in this House.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What’s this member doing?

I am doing that, because I think it is a subject for debate and I need to counter that debate. Therefore, I am perfectly able to do so.

Labour has a policy, but the previous speaker made no mention of what he or the National caucus would do about the petrol tax. [Interruption] Well, he did not say so in his speech, and it would be really good if he were to inform the House of what his policies were and then continue on with his speech. [Interruption]

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: You’re so embarrassed, you just want to get it stopped.

💬 Jill Pettis: No, I’m not; I’m saying: talk about the investment in the Waikato.

We have investment in the Waikato and, as I say, there is huge investment now, both in Auckland and Wellington, as the previous Mayor of Auckland, John Banks, would know. For many, many years he was going to do wonders on roading, and his party was also going to do wonders, but we did not see it happen. As I have said, I am now aware that there is greater four-laning and greater expenditure. In New Zealand, particularly in places like Tauranga where there is now greater access to the port, there has been considerable development and infrastructural development.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: The toll road.

Well, that is quite interesting. The toll road in Tauranga does not seem to be used all that much, which is quite fascinating. I would invite the member Mr Shirley to perhaps give another speech and talk about that more fully. [Interruption] Well, I think he would find it quite interesting.

Maurice Williamson, when he was Minister of Transport, was no better on this matter. Talking about Mr Banks and Mr Williamson, I hear there is a rumour that Maurice Williamson is being challenged by John Banks, which I find really interesting. There is an interesting process happening with members on the other side of the House.

I remind the speaker, too, that the National Government raised the petrol tax. So with regard to those comments being made, I say that at least my comments do not have to be yelled at people and thrust into this House.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: This is irrational.

Is the member rational? I think, as my colleague on this side was saying, that when we consider the neck muscles of the previous speaker as he is speaking and the volume at which he speaks, we can conclude that he is adding very little to the debate. Obviously, his matters are not addressing the bill that is before us.

As we have said, the bill provides a more secure base for land transport. It is part of the policy that was announced in December 2003. It is a matter of enacting what we have indicated we will enact; and a matter of ensuring that funding does continue on the very important matter of infrastructure for New Zealand—[Interruption]

💬 Jill Pettis: At least we let our women talk; we don’t sack them.

Yes, I take up the point that my colleague has made—so we have greater security being added into that area.

I also want to thank the Ministers we have had in this regard—to thank Pete Hodgson for the work he has done on the bill and to thank the previous Minister of Transport. We look forward to continued road building and infrastructure development in this country.

When New Zealanders ask why there is such a massive $7 billion Budget surplus in this Labour Government’s coffers, we do not have to go beyond this legislation to find the answer. This is a typical Labour Government: it taxes, it taxes, and it taxes. It cannot help itself; it thinks of yet more ways of taxing. This bill is another example of pernicious Labour Government taxation.

There is no need for this bill, because currently the Labour Government receives $1,825 million in taxes from road users but spends only $1,371 million, so it still has $400 million - plus up its sleeve in so far as the last financial year—2004—is concerned. We also know that in Transfund’s last year it did not spend all its money, and it had $250 million left over. There is no need for this legislation, other than as a back-door method for the Labour Government to collect more taxes to spend on some of the special little projects it has around the country for its supporters.

New Zealand First opposes this legislation. Our policy on this matter is very clear. First, the Government should spend the money that it currently collects from the taxpayer for use on the roads. It is collected from the taxpayer for use on the roads; it should be spent on the roads. In looking at the statistics, it was interesting to see that in the financial years ending 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, there was an ever-increasing amount of expenditure on the roads on a percentage basis. One remembers that that was New Zealand First policy, and that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Treasurer at the time. New Zealand First talks about spending more money on the roads, with that money to come from the money collected for spending on the roads, and when we are in Government we actually do it, as well—as one can see from these figures, which are here.

When Labour came into power, in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, the situation once again became gradually worse. There have been so many bad years of Labour and National Governments, and I look, for example, at the year 1990. That was one of the worst-ever years of the previous Labour Government’s time in office. It spent so little on the roads, and from there on things just became worse and worse, until New Zealand First tried to make some sort of impact.

I have to say that in the last couple of years, because inevitably something had to be done, there has been a bit more money spent on the roads. I suspect that that has been because the issue has been raised in this House, around the country, and in Auckland. It is also thanks to John Banks. I should give some credit to the former Mayor of Auckland, John Banks, who made such a fuss and bother. With the high profile he had—and probably still has, and will continue to have—he got the message out, and, I believe, cooperated with the Government of the day, the Labour Government, to make sure that more money was spent on Auckland roads. I had the privilege of going along—

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes, funded by the Labour Government.

I do not deny it. I say that finally, in the last couple of years, more money has been spent on roads. But the motorist has been taxed $1.8 billion. That is where all the money that the Government ever spends on the roads comes from, but, of course, it does not spend that amount; it has spent $1.371 million, and it has a massive surplus to use in other areas. And it wants another $200 million - odd, or whatever the figure is for this particular type of legislation, for other purposes of its own. So this bill is not needed, at all.

New Zealand First has also made it clear that it will not support toll roads. The previous National speaker said that we are a very highly taxed nation. He went on and on, and said that we should not be taxed any more through this bill, and we agree with that. But of course, he then supported toll roads. What else is a toll road other than another form of taxation? The National Party has to be a little more consistent about what it says, when it comes to taxation. The Government is clear: it wants to tax people black and blue, blue and white—and any colour one likes. It will tax people through the ordinary roading tax, it will bring in this extra tax, and it will tax people through toll roads. Of course, that is Labour, all the time. But with regard to the National Party, I think it should reconsider its view and, once again, support New Zealand First policy and say that tolls on roads are a form of taxation. If the National Party is sincere about not taxing people more, it should not promote tolls on roads. New Zealand First does not support toll roads. There is plenty of money there already for use on roading—

💬 Jill Pettis: What about the Tauranga Harbour Bridge?

It should not be tolled. That is New Zealand First policy. How many times do I have to tell that member that it should not be tolled? But she cannot get the message, quite obviously. She cannot be told that it should not be tolled! We cannot tell her anything, even when she has been told. I am talking about Jill Pettis from the Labour Party on this particular occasion.

New Zealand First supported the legislation last year for the establishment of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and suchlike. As a member of Parliament who looks after the Helensville electorate, and who is located on the North Shore and in west Auckland for constituency purposes, I take a close interest in what happens in the west Auckland area. New Zealand First, in supporting that legislation last year, made it clear that we also supported a good transport service by way of buses and rail. We do not support just roads on their own, which is the impression I seem to get from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith; we support a completely integrated roading system.

I made the point during that debate last year, and I repeat it today, that I look forward to the second rail line going not just as far as New Lynn, as is proposed, but even as far as Helensville. I look forward to that line going up to Helensville as part of a totally integrated Auckland set-up. I hope that one day John Key, the member of Parliament for Helensville, will agree with me, and will support me and the people of the Helensville electorate in supporting that second line up to Helensville. It is important for an overall system that we not only have roads but also have a good bus system.

On the North Shore we do not have a rail line. The Mayor of North Shore, George Wood, is to be congratulated on the work he is doing on the bus transport system being organised for the North Shore. He made the point in a recent New Zealand Herald article that “I want to see a balanced but positive approach from the ARC in line with our expectations that the Infrastructure Auckland $1.8 billion nest egg will pay for ferry, bus and rail facilities and be available quickly.” I think the point Mr Wood is making there is that we do not want the Auckland Regional Council just to sit on that money and to pay out just the interest on roading, rail, and ferry development; we want it actually to use some of that capital where it is so badly needed. The concern in Auckland is that the Auckland Regional Council will just sit on that money like a hen sitting on a golden egg, and will pay out only a bit of interest now and then. I can assure the Mayor of North Shore that I have read his speech, and I can assure him that I will be keeping an eye on the Auckland Regional Council’s development in that way.

As he also said in that speech: “… better public transport has to come first.” He wanted to make progress towards a target of 35 percent of people travelling on the harbour bridge using public transport, by 2011. I make that point, from the New Zealand First view, to make it clear that we support the upgrade, the improvements, in the roading system, and we also support the need for an integrated bus and rail transport system. Roading should not be considered purely on its own. I look forward to the extension of the north-western motorway in a proper way. When I look at the extension out to the airport through the Hillsborough - Mount Roskill area and going past Carrington and suchlike, and the creation of a fourth lane on the north-western motorway, I will be making sure, as one of the members interested, that it is done effectively and efficiently, and that the north-western motorway does not suddenly get a whole lot of extra traffic without the necessary extra lane to make it work.

This legislation is totally unconstitutional, it is giving a Minister far too much power, and it is totally unnecessary because the money is already there. Not only is the money there but some of it has not been spent. There are surpluses in Land Transport New Zealand’s accounts at the moment. New Zealand First cannot support such a pernicious, unconstitutional, and unnecessary piece of legislation.

I rise, on behalf of the National Party, in opposition to the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. There are a number of very sound reasons why that is so, and I want to share those with the House tonight.

First of all, this Government, like no other Government in the history of New Zealand, has taxed New Zealanders well beyond the point where they need to be taxed. The Government has a $7.4 billion surplus, and do members know that it is spending less money on roads—and has done over the 4 years it has been in Government, particularly in the Auckland region—than what was being spent prior to its coming into power? Here we are tonight, arguing about a further tax of another 5c a litre on “Joe Hardworker”, the motorist out there who is battling away, trying to survive despite the Government.

I say to this Government: “Tax, tax, tax! There are 24 new taxes. Do you not understand that eventually you will be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back?”. Our best entrepreneurs have taken flight from New Zealand en masse, as they have never done before in the history of New Zealand. They are in Australia, in the UK, and all around the world. In fact, tonight on the news I noticed that the British Government has reduced the work visa from 2 years down to 1, because there are so many Kiwis working in the UK; it is now arguing that that is creating a problem. We have to ask why they are there. Is it just because they are doing OE, or because they cannot survive here in New Zealand under the tax regime of this Government, or cannot see a way forward to prosper?

I ask Government members over there why they do not actually read some of the reports they have had commissioned. I have in front of me one from the Allen Consulting Group, which absolutely states that roading infrastructure in New Zealand at the moment is a major impediment to growth rates in this country. Why do members not also go further into that report and have a look at some of the suggestions put forward by the various workshops, groups, talking heads, and pointy heads that the Government has put together since it has been in power, and ask why we cannot do some of the things those people suggest? For example, they should allow Land Transport New Zealand and Transit to borrow against the strength of their balance sheets, and build some of these roads. Why can they not do that? Government members should stand and tell the House why not.

So far during this debate I have not heard a reason given. What I have heard is that if we slap another 5c of tax on petrol, it will somehow or other help fix the problem. Well, we all know that it will not. We all know that a large chunk of the money that is already siphoned off goes into the consolidated account, and successive Governments—I am not entirely blaming this Government—have said that they cannot claw it back in one go, because it would make too much of an impact on what is used to fund health, education, and suchlike. I suggest to the Government that it look at where the strengths lie at the moment, and implement a policy that will allow those strengths, such as the strength of the balance sheet, to be leveraged against.

It was interesting to listen to the member from New Zealand First say that that party would not support tolling. Well, that is an interesting concept, but right throughout that speech the senior Government whip interjected that the Tauranga bridge was built by means of tolling. That is the biggest argument I have heard tonight that weakens the Government’s position. That member was right—it was—and we could build a helluva lot more roads in New Zealand if we allowed the same thing to be done as was done in Tauranga. I say to the whip, who kindly interjected and gave me that line, that she is absolutely right. Why does she not talk to her Ministers, who are saying that the Government will not have a bar of tolling; that it smells of privatisation, corporatisation, or something—certainly not socialism—and they will not allow it to happen. Why not? What is so wrong with it? If people want the roads, and they are prepared to pay a bit extra in the areas where they want the roads, in order to avoid sitting in traffic jams for endless hours, why not let them? If they have the wherewithal to do it, why not allow them to do it?

We all know that one of the biggest problems with road development in New Zealand at the moment is not funding; funding is not the problem. The problem is getting a resource consent. We all know, because the issue has been debated in this House for 5½ years, that substantial amendments were proposed to the Resource Management Act, which were initially drafted up by Owen McShane and Simon Upton, and the Minister sitting opposite put a red pen through the whole lot. Then we had the bizarre situation where the incoming Labour Government gave funding to people who wanted to put forward vexatious claims against the development of roads. Those who wanted to argue the merits of preserving six hāngi stones—thereby holding up a $600,000 development on State Highway 3—were given legal aid to do so.

💬 Jill Pettis: Nonsense!

I kid you not. That is exactly what was allowed to happen. I say to the Minister that he should stand and take a call—as should the senior Government whip, who is interjecting over there—to say that that is not so and that it did not happen. I am telling the House that that is exactly what happened, and the Government knows it.

The Government has imposed 24 new taxes so far, since it came into power. How far does it think it can go? Where is the limit? When will it stop? Is there no end to this sensational concept of being able to grab money from “Joe Hardworker”, load him up with more, and hope he does not sink? Does it not understand that when it puts up the price of petrol by 5c a litre, it is poor old “Joe Hardworker”, a blue-colour Labour voter out there, who pays the price? How does mum get the kids to school? The senior whip should answer that. Does she not drive the car to take the kids to school? Certainly, there will not be a school bus, because this Government has done away with most of them. They have to travel by car.

I say to members opposite that it is the very people who help them and feed them that they are attacking—exactly those people. [Interruption] The member who is interjecting should get out and about in her electorate and find out how many people are able to travel to school by bus. I tell her that a large number of them have written to me—because they cannot get a response from that member—saying they are struggling to get their kids to school, because the bus is not up to speed.

There is a further point that I must make tonight: this process is also an abuse of the parliamentary process. This bill indexes the price of petrol to the consumer price index and also indexes it to inflation. That gives the Labour executive the power to put the price of petrol up every year or every 6 months.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Or not, for political reasons.

Or not, for political reasons—not for sound, fiscal reasons. The Government can put our petrol price up—without the matter being brought back to this Parliament where it could be properly scrutinised—from now to eternity, as a result of this legislation. I say to the member who has been interjecting throughout my speech that she should stand and tell us why that is fair. How is it that this Government can abuse the Westminster system to such an extent that the Government can go ahead with a proposal to increase the tax on petrol without it going through the full parliamentary process? That is power to the executive like we have never seen before. That is typical socialism. That is the worst kind of socialism, and it allows people like the member opposite to decide when the Government can put the price of petrol up, without even reference to this Parliament.

I say to the member who is interjecting that what she needs to do is actually go out, talk to some of her constituents, and ask them whether they believe that a further 5c of tax on their petrol will fix the roads in Wanganui. That is a simple enough question. The member should be able to understand the concept. She should go to the constituents of the Whanganui electorate and ask: “Do you believe that a 5c petrol tax, which was originally intended for Auckland and now is being divided up, for political reasons, across the nation, will fix the roading problems in the Whanganui electorate?”. I know what the answer will be, and it is certainly not “Yes.” They will tell that member, in no uncertain terms, and they will tell this Government, in no uncertain terms, that this tax is yet another stealth tax, indexed against inflation and indeed against the consumer price index, that it is wrong, and that it will not work. This Government should look at some of the reports that it has had commissioned, at huge expense, and come up with a strategy that will fix New Zealand’s roads, rather than imposing another 5c in tax.