Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill

I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose Part 1. I find it quite amazing to see what the Government is proposing. For the benefit of those people who have not had an opportunity to read the bill, I simply say that this is a Government that wants to index the duty on petrol and motor spirits. It wants to index its right to build inflation into its revenue stream, year in and year out. The Minister does not want to come to this Parliament and say so. The Government does not want to ask to pass on to the people of New Zealand the additional costs of inflation in its revenue stream.

I say to the Minister and to the Government that this proposal is actually quite logical. We do this in a number of areas. We do it for tobacco and alcohol, and there is some quite compelling logic about doing it for motor spirits. But it gets a bit rich when this comes from a Government that, when it looks on the other side of the ledger—when it looks at the income tax paid by New Zealanders—does not want a bar of this kind of approach. The Government is very happy to look after its revenue stream. It is more than happy to have the effects of inflation nullified by the Act of Parliament that will be amended by this legislation. The Government is more than happy to know that if inflation is rampant in New Zealand and we are facing ever-decreasing amounts of income in a real sense, it is protected. That is absolutely fine from the Government’s perspective. But the poor old workers out there will have to pay for the inflation on petrol as a result of this legislation. They have to pay for the inflation on tobacco—on cigarettes. But those people do not get the effects of inflation on their income.

Labour members smugly sit back in their green seats. They do not have to be out there working hard for a living all day. They do not care about the poor workers out there. They do not care about the policemen. I asked the Minister of Revenue a very interesting question a few months ago. I asked him if he could tell me how many policemen in New Zealand pay the top rate of personal taxation. Mr Hughes is giving me the fairly standard “deer in the headlights” look of the Government, so let me tell him how many pay the top rate. Thirty-nine percent of all policemen in New Zealand pay the top rate of taxation. That is right—they are the elite rich, according to Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. Wonderful! “Join the police force and get rich” will be the new advertising slogan under Labour. Thirty-nine percent of policemen pay the top rate of taxation, which was raised under a Labour Government to 39c in the dollar. Two or 3 years ago the number of policemen paying the top rate of taxation was 13 percent. That is right—it has gone from 13 percent to 39 percent in 3 years. Why? Because the effect of inflation has pushed the wages and salaries of policemen and policewomen into a higher bracket. Their real, after-tax income is not going up. Their real, after-tax income is, in fact, stagnant. They are not getting ahead, and that is why they do not feel any better off.

On the wages and salaries side of the ledger, the Government says: “We don’t care about inflation; tough luck. Just pay the higher rates of taxation. Let us have more money, and we’ll go out and waste it on all sorts of things like twilight golf, hip-hop tours, and anything else we can dream up.” You name it; the Government will spend money on it. It does not care, because it is rolling in clover. Why? It has so much money coming in, because it is prepared to index its revenue.

The Government talks a lot about its confidence and supply agreements and its coalition arrangements with various parties. It happily took the confidence and supply support of United Future. It was happy to come to this House and say: “We’ve got a strong confidence and supply motion.” We all know that when one of the Government’s tax bills was before the House late last year Gordon Copeland, the finance spokesman for United Future, put up a Supplementary Order Paper that would have seen the indexation of income tax. And what did the Minister of Finance do? He vetoed it. He said: “No, I am not prepared to accept inflation when it is on your side of the ledger, but when it comes to the Government’s revenue—when it comes to my coffers—I want the lot.” That is not fair.

This is a very interesting bill. It is the first time that Parliament has had a bill like this referred to a select committee and the first time there has been the opportunity for public submissions on a bill like this. I would have thought that the least the Opposition could do was congratulate the Government on improving the process.

The truth is that there has been a huge under-investment in transport infrastructure in New Zealand over a considerable period of time. National Party members from Auckland have whinged constantly about the poor quality of transport in Auckland, yet National in its 10 years in Government did nothing about it. But this Government has invested a substantial amount of money in Auckland roads. If members were to go to Auckland today, they would see quite a lot of roadworks going on. But much more needs to be done.

The Government will invest a substantial amount into transport infrastructure, not only in Auckland but in every region around the country. Every cent raised by this proposal will be invested in transport infrastructure throughout New Zealand on a population basis. For example, there will be a substantial quickening of the building and improvement of roads in my region, the Hawke’s Bay. The people of the Hawke’s Bay welcome that. Likewise, the people of Canterbury want to see improvements in their roads. The people of Southland want to see improvements in their roads and this bill will do that.

The bill provides for the duty to be indexed to inflation, and, as the previous speaker said, there is precedent for that. Funding for roading will be guaranteed and there will be a clear stream of funding to help improve New Zealand’s infrastructure. If we want New Zealand to grow, we have to have better, improved roads.

I want to refer to a point made by Mr Key. I was interested in what he said about the top rate of tax in terms of police officers. If 13 percent of police officers were paying the top rate of tax before, and now 39 percent are doing so, he should be congratulating the Government on increasing the salaries of police constables in a very short period of time. It just shows that the member cannot count. He cannot do maths.

💬 John Key: I certainly can.

The member cannot. He has claimed that police officers’ pay is static. That means that it has not improved or changed. If the member thinks about it for a moment, the point is that the top rate of tax is 39c, and 39c out of every dollar means that officers get 61c in the dollar. I would have thought that if they get an extra 61c for every extra dollar earned, they are improving their position. That member simply cannot count.

This bill is a good bill. The public want to see our roading infrastructure improved and this bill will deliver for all reasons, for all New Zealand.

In speaking to Part 1 of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, I will read an excerpt from the commentary on the bill: “… as oil prices are at high levels, the Minister of Customs”—who is in the chair—“proposed that we amend the bill to allow for the excise duty increase to come into force on a later date by Order in Council, to allow the implementation of the increase to be delayed.” My question to the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, is this: does he honestly think the average New Zealander will accept an explanation like that? It is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever heard. I want to say to this Government—I wanted to say it to that Minister, but he has, sadly, just left the chair—that it is a disgrace.

The average New Zealander out on the street will not believe it. This Government thinks the average New Zealander is dumb. That is what it thinks. But we on this side of the House know that New Zealanders are not dumb. As the New Zealand First spokesperson, as a New Zealand First member, I say that this Government will realise, come the 2005 election—which is only 6 or 7 months away, depending on when the Prime Minister wants to call it—that the people of New Zealand are not dumb.

This Government wants not only to put up petrol tax again but to toll the Albany to Pūhoi realignment, which is the State highway in the Rodney electorate, where I come from. This Government says it needs even more money. Not only will it keep taxing us to the hilt on income, and through other taxes like petrol tax, but it says it will toll, it will tax us through GST, and it will tax us every way we turn. Every way we turn we will be taxed. This Government always tells itself: “Just a little bit more and it will be enough.” But the fact is that for this Government it will never be enough, because it will constantly be throwing its money into pet projects like the arts, like the hip-hop tours that John Key mentioned. There will never ever be enough.

Delaying the 5 percent rise in petrol tax until after the election is manipulative, deceptive, disgraceful, and morally wrong. But this Government does not care about morals, or whether something is wrong. We have seen that. It cares about whether it can collect money; that is all this Government cares about. It wants to toll a State highway. It wants to tax New Zealanders again, and again, and again.

Who is it taxing? It is taxing the hard-working New Zealanders, who will, in the upcoming election in 7 months’ time, say that they have had enough. They have had enough of this Government’s social engineering, they have had enough of its political correctness, and they have had enough of its high taxes. The Minister was just talking about a police constable who, after taxes, superannuation payments, and so on, gets $500 a week in his or her hand and is meant to feed a family with that. Now, this Government would, after the election, tax every motorist another 5c in every dollar.

That is disappointing. New Zealand First says that it is not good enough constantly to try to find other areas in which to tax New Zealanders, and then to spend the revenue on pet projects like hip-hop tours and other ridiculous things. New Zealand First says “Look out!”.

I have, just now, been going through the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, and I realise—and this might be a shock to members of the House and to the public—that this bill will not pass. When we look at the commentary on the bill and read the minority views, we realise that they add up to the majority. What we see is that the National Party is opposing this bill—good on them—that the New Zealand First Party is opposing this bill—good on them—and that the ACT party, of course, is opposing this bill. I also see, when I look over the page, that the Green Party is not prepared to support this bill. The Green members are happy for taxes to go up, but they think that the bill does not go far enough. They say that taxes should also go up for diesel users, as well. So the Green Party, along with the other Opposition parties, is a dissenting voice. So, clearly, the Greens will not vote for this bill. Then there is the brave, bold United Future party—and, blow me down, they do not support it either. United Future believes that it is okay to put taxes up on petrol, but that there should be a reduction in income tax.

💬 Gordon Copeland: That’s right.

Mr Copeland says that that is right. I have news for him. Nowhere in this bill is there a reduction in income tax.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: So they won’t be voting for it.

They will not be voting for it. This bill is dead. This bill is dead because the United Future party, the Green Party, and the other Opposition parties have put on record their opposition to it.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Why don’t we put it in the bin?

Well, why waste time? Why debate it—unless, of course, the Greens want to get up and say that they wrote those words but did not mean them.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: They wouldn’t do that.

No, they would not do that, because I hear them so often talking about their truthfulness, their honesty, and their principles. So what they wrote is what they mean. I turn to the United Future members. About them, I have no doubt. They are good, Christian people. They are the honest brokers of Parliament. They are the honest members of Parliament who hold the Government to account.

💬 Gordon Copeland: We’ll stand by what we wrote.

Gordon Copeland says that the United Future party wrote that it believes the bill should be accompanied by a drop in income tax. That is a test, is it not? We are in an election year, and there is a question about political parties, is there not? Can people trust them? Can people trust a party to deliver on what it promises? Can people trust a party to deliver on what it says? The United Future party has said unequivocally that this bill should be accompanied by a drop in income tax. That is what it is telling its supporters and its members—so they will vote against this bill.

💬 Hon Member: It’s a dead duck.

It is a dead duck, and it should be. Why is the Government putting up taxes to build more roads? It does not need more money. What about the surplus? What about alternative funding mechanisms? What about the petrol tax that already exists? Who trusts Labour to spend this 5c increase on roading only, as it promised? Was that not what the roading tax—the petrol tax—was originally meant to be? Of course it was!

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: It’s a Tui tax.

Yeah, right! Then the Government says it will allocate 35 percent of the increase to Auckland, and the rest will be allocated on a population basis around New Zealand. What percentage of people live in Auckland? About 35 percent. What a lot of rubbish! Then we see that the Government will inflation-proof it. That is a good one for the United Future party, too.

The public might have no idea from this debate that we are debating Part 1—“Amendments enabling indexation of duties on motor spirits by reference to diversion amounts”—of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. Part 1 is the part that indexes the rate of excise duty on petrol or motor spirits to the consumer price index.

There is an important constitutional principle here that in all my years in this Chamber has been adhered to very closely, which is that no Government has the right to increase taxes on people without the representatives of the people actually passing it—accepting it.

💬 Shane Ardern: No taxation without representation!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: My colleague Shane Ardern reminds us that there should be no taxation without representation. It has been an important constitutional principle that only this Parliament can increase taxes. Sure, Governments can propose that there should be increases in taxes, but they bring them to Parliament. Part 1 of this bill says to hell with Parliament; it says that this Labour Government of Helen Clark is so all-knowing, so wise, so wonderful—after all, Helen Clark once referred to herself as an extraordinarily successful and competent Prime Minister, and she tells the public so; she is a “victim of her own success”, is our Prime Minister—that it can ignore that constitutional principle and put up taxes just by Order in Council. That means that taxes will be upped when the Government decides to up them, and Parliament can whistle in the wind.

I think that is an important issue. It is something this Parliament should not hand over to the executive without a lot of careful thought. If the Government were to bring to Parliament a comprehensive proposal stating that it wanted to be more efficient, and that, as the petrol excise is increased every year according to the consumer price index, it would make that automatic, but that, to make sure the proposal was a balanced one, it would also address, for example, the income tax side and index the thresholds for that, that would provide some balance. Maybe Parliament would be prepared, in those circumstances, to say that that would be fair to the taxpayers whom we represent. But this bill is not fair, because it empowers the executive to put up the taxes on petrol without Parliament having any say. The people we represent will get clobbered because the income tax they pay is not indexed. The thresholds on which their income tax are based are not indexed to the consumer price index. So the people we represent are not being treated fairly by this.

This bill is a real test for United Future. We know that United Future believes that the income tax thresholds should be indexed to the consumer price index. We know that United Future, in its minority report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, stated that it believes that this increase in petrol tax should be offset by a reduction in personal income tax. This is a test for United Future. Will it vote for anything it believes in—for something as important as this—or will it just keel over and be another little limp-wristed doormat for this Government? This will be a real test, because this is an important issue. This Government giving this executive the power to increase taxes is an important issue, and United Future should stand on principle for something and vote with the Opposition to try to prevent the Government from carrying this proposal out.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: They won’t? They won’t.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: No, I am not sure how United Future will vote. I suspect it may well vote with the Government, because I do not think its members have enough you-know-what to vote against the Government on this issue. This will be the test.

I suspect the Greens will vote with the Government because they are in the Government’s hip pocket—but I should not say that. [Interruption] Watermelons? Well, yes, we know about the Green Party. I suspect it will vote with the Government, but United Future should show some principle.

I would like to confirm that, as the previous speaker said, Part 1, “Amendments enabling indexation of duties on motor spirits by reference to diversion amounts”, of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill is about indexing the excise duty on motor spirits for inflation. We have just heard a very interesting speech by a member who said that that is a dreadful thing to do, that it bypasses parliamentary processes, and that it is unfair and unjust, etc. A number of National Party members were seeking the call, and I invite them to say—as the previous speaker did not—whether they believe that the indexation of excise duty on motor spirits is wrong. Are they prepared to make a commitment here in the Chamber today that should they be fortunate enough to be elected later this year by the people of New Zealand as the new Government, they will repeal that section of the legislation? If they are not prepared today to say that, then it will be quite clear to everybody listening to, and participating in, the debate that that is just another bit of politicking.

If indeed National members believe they will form the Government, then it is about time they started to tell the people of New Zealand exactly what they will or will not do when they become the Government. My challenge to them is quite clear: if they want to repeal the provision, they should get up and say so.

Secondly, while I very much accept the praise and support of the National Party, New Zealand First, and ACT for the indexation of inflation brackets when it comes to personal income tax, which is our policy, and which we have clearly stated we will do if we have a hand in the next Government, I would like those other parties to go a little further and say that if they are part of the next Government, they will do that, too—they will index the inflation brackets. It is all very well to come here and praise the policy of other parties; that is good, it is a tribute and, I suppose, a compliment, to the fact that the indexation of the tax brackets is obviously and patently necessary in any fair and just tax system. Otherwise, without coming near Parliament the executive could increase the effective rate of income tax just by doing nothing, and that is not good enough. It is something that we want to see changed.

My simple request is to let the other parties take the opportunity to state what they intend to do about this bill that we are debating today, should they be part of the next Government;

I am hugely disappointed in the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, because he has shown a complete lack of understanding of a term referred to in financial circles as “fiscal creep”. We are not talking about the Minister of Finance; we are talking about a process that happens when indexation occurs. I shall put it to the Minister in the chair. My colleague John Key pointed out that some time ago only 13 percent of police officers were paying the top rate of tax of 39c in the dollar but now 39 percent of them are paying it. The Minister said that showed how great the Government was in having increased their pay. What he did not seem to understand was the time value of money.

I put it to him that back in 1999, when this Government came to power and legislated for the 39c rate, a lot of police officers would have been earning around $59,000 or $58,000 or maybe even $57,000 a year. Now, those police officers, receiving just straight inflation adjustments to their pay—that is, no improvement in their actual standard of living, because it is just correcting for inflation alone—will have accumulated around 12 percent. I have an accumulative inflation figure over that time, of about 12 percent. So if one accumulates 12 percent on that $58,000, one is talking of, say, another $7,000 pay. That means those officers are receiving exactly the same amount as they were beforehand. They were being paid $59,000 and now they are on, say, $66,000, which is the exact stand-still pay rate. The Minister said those people had now all moved from the 33c top bracket to the 39c top bracket and that they were much better off. In fact, they are no better off. If their pay has only kept pace with inflation, and their tax rate on that money is higher than it was, they are worse off. We have a Minister who said to this Committee that those policemen should be grateful to the Government—

💬 Opposition Member: He’s dumb.

Clearly, he is a dumb Minister if he does not understand the principle of “fiscal creep” and that 5 years ago that money was worth a lot more per dollar than it is now. So we get to the principle of Part 1—that is, indexing the revenue stream. The Minister has come along here with a bill and said that instead of just collecting so many cents petrol tax per litre he wants that figure as the starting point, and then every year, as the consumer price index goes up, he wants to catch a little bit more, and then a bit more, and a bit more. I ask why he does not do that at the other end in terms of the income tax brackets at which a person slips into the 33c in the dollar rate and the 39c.

I shall give the Committee an example of what will happen, if that does not occur at some stage. Within 25 to 30 years every worker in this country will be earning more than $60,000. In fact, $60,000 will probably be the pension or the unemployment rate in 25 to 30 years, if one looks at what “fiscal creep” means. If this Government does not do any indexation, everybody in New Zealand will be on the 39c top tax rate. But maybe that is what Labour actually wants. I have suddenly realised that I am wrong. That is the great plan! Why did I not spot it? I thought Labour said, originally, that it was done to catch the top 5 percent of high-income earners, but, of course, I was wrong. It was to do with catching everybody. There will not be a single sausage out there in the workforce who, one day, will not be on $60,000. I tell the Minister that with “fiscal creep” they will all be on the top tax rate paying 39c in the dollar.

If the Minister genuinely believes that the Government just wants to catch the top rich and he believes that indexing is right, let us do it for both. Let us put up an amendment right now to do it for both; to take the 39c at $60,000, correct it every year, so that—my colleague John Key will have a more accurate figure—we would be up to a figure of $67,000 by then, and we say that it would kick in only at $67,000, and within the 25 to 30 years I was talking about, when everyone is on $60,000, they would not pay that tax rate until they were on the $250,000 mark. But, oh no! We heard nothing: not a sausage, not a mutter, not a murmur from the Minister.

Then United Future came out with an absolutely lame-duck report saying they would be supporting the bill, so long as there was a corresponding reduction in taxation. Then we heard the previous speaker, Mr Copeland, double dog National to explain its policy. Our policy is to reduce taxes for all New Zealanders when we become the Government. Income tax, GST, and other costs will be reduced, so that the total tax take will drop across the whole country. It will not be with regard to just petrol tax; it will cover company tax, personal tax—the lot. There is his answer.

I rise for the ACT party to oppose the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. I remind the Committee that this is the fifth tax increase on motorists since Labour has been in power. Each one has been presented to Parliament with the reason that Labour wants to reduce congestion in our cities or to improve the standard of roading in New Zealand. However, I think most Kiwis understand that it is simply a way to grab more taxes. So this is yet another tax-grab bill by the Labour Government.

I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but I note in the report to the House that the bill was referred to that committee on 4 November last year and had to be reported back on 26 November. That gave just over 3 weeks for submissions to be called for, advertised, and sorted through. Is it any wonder that on an issue as big as putting up petrol prices and petrol tax, there were only 16 submissions? This is yet another example of the Labour Party’s undermining of the democratic process by ramming legislation through so quickly that people who are concerned—and I say that would be every motorist and every small business in New Zealand in particular—do not have time to take part in the whole submission process. When submissioners are given 3 weeks, from beginning to end, it is no wonder that, essentially, the Labour Party seeks to lock out those people who might be opposed to this legislation.

The first part of the bill deals with inflation adjustments. We have already heard in this debate how the Labour Government has inflation-adjusted excise duties on alcohol and cigarettes, and now it will add petrol to that group. We have also heard how that undermines the whole sovereignty of Parliaments. Asking a Government to come to the House with its hand out, or its hat out, to beg for the numbers in Parliament to be allowed to put up taxes is a very key part of the Westminster democratic process. We want Governments to come, cap in hand, to their Parliament to ask for permission to put up taxes in a country. What the Labour Party is doing, in a very sneaky way, is taking that role outside of this House and doing it by regulation, through Order in Council. In that way it will not invoke the wrath of taxpayers up and down the country, who will say: “Hang on a minute. Government, you are being too greedy.”

What is peculiar at this particular time, as we pass this bill, is the fact that Labour is already going to be sitting on a treasure chest of some $6 billion—the amount by which it has overtaxed New Zealanders. There is a huge surplus. Yet the Government is deciding that it has to pull more money out of the families of motorists, up and down the country.

We have heard about the problem of indexing taxes. It is interesting; I asked our research unit to tell me what would happen if we indexed tax rates. When Labour came into power it said there would be no tax increases for anyone earning under $60,000 a year. Well, if we had indexed taxation it would be only people earning over $68,000 a year who would be on the top tax rate, only people earning between $43,000 and $68,000 a year would be on the second tier of 33c in the dollar, and anyone earning under $43,000 a year would be paying the bottom rate of 19.5c in the dollar. So instead of the Government being fair and deciding that it would index income tax rates as well as all those user charges, it has tried to pretend that it does not need to.

I take issue with Minister Barker, who said we should congratulate him or the Labour Government on the process of bringing this bill into the House. The fact is that members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee were forced to have a very short time frame in which to invite submissions. Basically, the bill was introduced on 4 November and submissions closed on 26 November.

Deliberation on the submissions took only about an hour, and the committee’s consideration took only about 2 hours, because the chairperson and the Labour members kept rushing the process and saying how important it was to get the bill back to the House. So I do not think any brownie points or congratulations are due to that Minister or the Labour Government.

The second point is that even during that short time we heard 16 submissions. None of the submitters supported either Part 1 or Part 2. One submission, which was from roading contractors, was not against the bill, mainly because their members want certainty that they will have the funds to build the roads, and, basically, they said that any source their funding comes from is fine. So technically we are talking about zero support—100 percent zero support—for this bill. So one has to ask, what does it take, under the democratic process, to make this Government take note?

I also feel it is important to read, for the public, what an individual submitter wrote to the select committee, just in case this tax-and-spend Government thinks it is penalising only the so-called high-income earners, or people who can afford to drive, by introducing this indexation. One individual submitter wrote this in a submission: “I and many others like myself are home helpers out in the community and we are very poorly paid. Out of that pay we must use our own cars without the benefit of a petrol allowance, and the ever-upward cost of petrol is reducing our income to a point where some of us are seriously considering giving up this valuable service.” He also mentioned the other volunteers who are on fixed incomes and are contributing to society by volunteering their services as Meals on Wheels drivers, Red Cross support drivers, Cancer Society drivers, etc.

I know it is a waste of time for us to plead with members of the Labour-Progressive minority Government, because they are hardened and they believe in taxing and spending. So my question, once again, is directed at United Future. Members of United Future and the Green Party today, after listening to this individual submission made to the select committee, have a chance to help those New Zealanders who have volunteered to drive to support other people in need. Those members can help today by not supporting the bill. This bill does not have to go through. Today, during the Committee stage, is the moment for both the Greens and United Future members to show that they are genuinely representing their supporters by coming into Parliament and doing something good—that is, not depriving those fantastic volunteers out there who are subject to this indexation of petrol tax.

There is a convention by which every year the Minister of Finance has to bring to this House a bill to confirm the taxation rate—every year, because it is important. Petrol tax is a very important tax. I would say that literally New Zealanders who are of driving age do at some stage get behind the wheel and will have to pay this petrol tax. Compared with income tax, it is a tax that probably even more people pay. It is totally unacceptable that Part 1 gives the Government an automatic increase in taxation revenue for roading projects. We can demonstrate in further debate—because we will take more calls—that there are already funds to finance the increased need of more New Zealand roads.

I move, That the question be now put.

This part deals with the indexation of the fuel tax. New Zealand First does not support that. We do not believe it is necessary. I know that the Minister will bear these figures out and support me in this, because the growth in vehicle traffic grows greater than inflation every year. On top of that the average car consumes more petrol per year. I know that cars can go further, on average, on a litre of petrol, but they are actually burning more. So the Government—

💬 John Key: Not in Auckland they can’t be, because they are at a standstill most of the time!

I think the member is making a very good point.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: It’s all the fault of the National Government—9 years of neglect under National!

But believe it or not, on average in New Zealand more petrol is being used—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I apologise to my colleague from New Zealand First, but you could, if you saw fit, remind the Committee that there is a convention that a Minister in the chair, with a live microphone, is not to interject whilst other members are making their contribution to the Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right, and I certainly so caution the Minister.

The point I am making is that the Government is getting more and more revenue from motorists by natural gains in that there are more cars and more fuel is consumed. It is way ahead of inflation.

I want to turn my attention to United Future, because Gordon Copeland offered us a challenge. He asked the major parties, National in particular, whether they would repeal this. Let me tell the honourable member that if we do not get taxation indexed we would repeal this. I am convinced we would repeal this. Although I have not discussed that detail with my caucus, I know the feeling on this matter in my caucus. We do not think it is fair, or justified, to index petrol but not taxation. The member sitting there—Gordon Copeland—who is nodding his head, has an absolute power at his fingertips. He can say to this Government: “Look, we don’t agree with this unless you do both bits. We will not support this bit unless you do the other bit that we want.” He claimed that his was the instigating party in wanting taxation indexed. I do not believe that to be true. I believe that the member does want it to be indexed, but his is not the only party. It is certainly a worthwhile idea to be given strong consideration.

He can go to this Government and say: “Look, we give you supply and confidence. We give you it very, very cheaply, but, on this issue, unless you give us both, we’re not going to support it.” I know that the bill will still have the numbers to get through, because the woolly-woofter Greens will support it. But the member does not have to tie himself along with the Greens on these sorts of things. The Greens would tax everybody out of existence. I see Sue Bradford is shaking her head, but the Greens state that they believe diesel users should contribute to the non-road costs they impose on the economy through an excise tax on diesel. They want to tax diesel operators—the trucks and goodness know what. They want to slam it on to them. That is the truth of the matter. It is more taxation. There is no account of where it will go, and, no doubt, they will want to index it through inflation.

However, I say to United Future members—because from time to time a degree of common sense comes through from those members in some of their announcements—that they should show some strength of conviction and, if they cannot show New Zealanders that they stand for something, show us in this Committee that they really do believe that taxation should be indexed. That party has spent oodles of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money saying that there should be no GST on rates—there have been big notices all over the place—because it is a tax on a tax. That is absolutely correct. Would those honourable members remove GST from the tax that is on petrol? No, they would not. I have already asked them that. So the principle of not taxing a taxation does not count for too much, but when Grey Power or somebody else says: “Take it off rates.”, they go along with it knowing that they will give the Government confidence and supply and whatever, and that they will do nothing about the taxation, at all.

It is no wonder MPs and politicians generally have a bad name with the public. Nobody really knows what those members stand for or where they will put a stake in the sand. We will not support the indexation of petrol.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek some guidance from you. During the course of the debate Mr Hide pointed out that the National Party, New Zealand First, ACT, Green Party, and United Future had all submitted minority reports on this bill. Would you be able to advise the Committee whether that in any way binds the way that those parties vote on the bill?

I would like to say, because I think it is pertinent to the point of order, that Mr Hide misquoted. Our minority report states that United Future supports the 5c per litre increase. Therefore, the point raised in the point of order does not arise.

It is not a point of order to debate. Members of the select committee vote how they see it at the time.

💬 Peter Brown: Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the matter.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would not have raised this point, but my colleague saw fit to raise a point of order on the commentary. The commentary lists the select committee membership as the standard committee. However, on this particular bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters was replaced by my good self. I do not know whether that is important in the scheme of things.

No, it is not; that is a matter for the select committee to record. I will just repeat that the minority view is the view of the select committee member; it does not bind his or her party in any way.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I thank you for your ruling on that. However, I seek clarification. Under the heading “Minority views” there are paragraphs from National, New Zealand First, ACT, Green Party, and United Future. That would indicate to the Committee—and I appreciate that they are not bound—that the United Future and Green Party members of the select committee were in fact in the minority and opposed to the bill, if they did, indeed, contribute a paragraph to the minority view part of the commentary. I know that does not bind them when voting now—you have made that ruling and I do not dispute that for one moment—but it puts us in an interesting position and I now look for clarification. Does it follow from your ruling that Gordon Copeland, the member from United Future, and the Green member Rod Donald, were in the minority in opposing the bill at the select committee stage?

No, it is not a matter for the Committee of the whole House now. That was a matter for select committee members at the time. It is their report.

💬 Simon Power: Is my interpretation correct? I accept that it is not a matter for this Committee.

It is not up to me to interpret that.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I had not intended to do this, but because this has happened I would like to point out that like our colleague Mr Copeland, the Green Party states in its minority report that it supports the increase to the level of duty on motor spirits, which is a clear indication of support for the—

I remind members that they are debating points that could be brought up during the discussion of the Committee of the whole House. They are not points of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the voting any further than I already have, but before we get on to Part 2, the member Sue Bradford raised a very interesting point. I do not look for a ruling now, but perhaps we could have a considered ruling from the Chair later in the piece. I believe Ms Bradford said that the Greens supported the bill during the select committee stage and that that was to be the interpretation to be put on its minority report. How can that be right? How can a minority report that opposes the majority view contain a view that supports the bill? It may well be that we need this matter clarified for select committees. I do not ask you to make a ruling at this point, but you can see the dilemma that we are in.

It is certainly my understanding that it is the committee’s role, and I have certainly heard discussion on this previously.

Part 2 Amendments to increase duties on motor spirits