Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill

The Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill is only a relatively small piece of legislation, but it packs a lot of punch. It is a real punch in the guts to a whole lot of New Zealanders who are trying to work out why, when Michael Cullen has $7,000 million of surplus money available to him—[Interruption] That is right: $7 billion - odd. They are sitting at home now, probably wanting to have a nice sherry and watch the news in an hour’s time, trying to work out why they will have to pay 5.6c a litre in petrol tax—why they will have to pay more in petrol tax than they could possibly imagine.

They will be discussing this issue as we move towards the election. Why? Mark my words: even though this bill, if it is enacted, will allow the Minister of Finance to put on that petrol tax in a few weeks’ time, when it is available to him, he will not. He will not, because he knows that it is deeply unpopular, he knows that he cannot justify his position to the electorate, and he knows that thousands and thousands of motorists up and down the country know when they are getting ripped off. I say to Mr Barker that they know when their income is rising in nominal terms but not in real terms. They know the impact of inflation. They know how deeply unfair it is when they have to pay the top personal rate of taxation on some income, so that, in real terms, they get nothing. Now they are having to wear this on the other side.

They know another rip-off when they see it. They know a Government that does not have the courage—if I can use that term—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member cannot imply that anyone lacks courage.

The Government does not have the intestinal fortitude, then, to test this measure with the public prior to the election. The Government is happy to put the indexation on immediately—no problems there—but it is very happy to leave this measure until after the election. I predict today that it will not matter whether the price of oil is $40 the day before the election, and, lo and behold, the extra petrol tax cannot go on; it could be $45 the day after the election, and if Labour wins the tax will be on, with plenty more to come, because this Government simply loves to tax people and simply loves to spend more.

Mr Barker made what I thought was a very interesting comment. He said it was only another 5c. It is only another $200 million from the fixed incomes of New Zealanders. It is only another couple of hundred million dollars. When the Government is amassing a surplus of $7 billion - odd, what difference does it make? [Interruption] Yes, the Government is taking $34 billion of extra tax this year. Who really cares whether it takes an extra couple of hundred million dollars?

Labour has tried pretty hard to create the image that it is doing so much more to build roads. That, of course, is a mirage. Maurice Williamson pointed out in his address, quite correctly, that in fact this Government is spending less, in terms of a real percentage of GDP, on roading than it has spent before. It is not spending more; it is spending less. It is spending less than Australia, less than America, and less than England. It is spending less than most other OECD countries. And those are countries that have welcomed the private sector, as well.

When New Zealanders go to Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane for their holidays, they notice the difference between the kind of holiday they have there and the kind of holiday they have in New Zealand. The holiday they have in New Zealand is primarily spent in the car. They set off on Friday night for what is normally a 1-hour drive to their beach house, and they get there some time on Saturday afternoon. In a fit of frustration they pack up on Saturday night and pop back into town on Monday morning. It is basically a really interesting exercise in how to have a holiday in a car. No wonder New Zealanders are buying bigger cars; they have to have bigger cars, because they sleep and shower in them! [Interruption] That is right.

I recently had a very interesting experience, which I will relay in order to show how bad things are. At a public meeting just the other day, a member of the public said to me: “When you become the Government in a few months, fix the roads.” I asked why. He said that he had just dropped his son at the airport for a flight to Nelson. His son had rung from his home in Nelson and said: “How’s it going, dad?”, to which the reply was: “I’m still on the north-western motorway; I haven’t got back from the airport.” That is how bad things are. His son had flown to Nelson, but he was still on the north-western motorway—and the Government says it is fixing the problem! I do not think so.

This is a very short piece of the bill. I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the change it made to make Part 2 come into effect on 1 April, and for some other changes, consistent with that, to do with the Governor-General. In response to John Key’s—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It doesn’t come into effect on 1 April.

Clause 2 comes into effect when the Governor-General signs it, on the date of royal assent—[Interruption] Yes, I have got that.

I want to come back to the point made by Mr Key and to contrast it with the comments previously made by Dr Lockwood Smith. Dr Lockwood Smith lamented the fact that people are stuck in traffic as they go north of Auckland. I remind him and the member behind him, Maurice Williamson, that Maurice Williamson was Minister of Transport in the National Government for 9 years and did nothing about it, whatsoever. Dr Smith laments the fact that an overtaking lane is being put in and has taken 12 years to build. Well, in the 9 years when the National Party was in Government no bulldozers were there at all.

The fact is that roading is being done in this country, and this Government, with this extra 5c in tax, will fix a lot of projects that have been waiting a long time. In my area of Hawke’s Bay there would have been a long, long wait before the overbridge at Meeanee was fixed. This extra amount of money will ensure that that is done and done quickly, and my people are very pleased about that. A lot of other things will be done. This 5c will make sure that we have better infrastructure.

The National Party can go on as much as it likes about how bad the roads are, but it has not yet thought up a way to fix them other than the proposal before us. I say to the National Party that this Government takes these issues seriously. We will fix them. The National Party had 9 years in Government and did nothing. We have done vastly more in the short time we have been in Government. We will have vastly improved the roads by the time we too have spent 9 years in office, and we will do even better in the years after that. Make no mistake about it: this Government is committed to improving infrastructure, despite what Maurice Williamson said. He was in Government for years and he did nothing.

Speaking to the title and commencement clauses of this legislation, I say that was an appalling, pathetic speech by—was that a Minister? That was not some back-bench Labour lackey with no understanding of what has gone on in this country; that was the Minister of Customs.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s in charge of the bill!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Rick Barker is in charge of the legislation, and he has no idea when it comes into effect. He has no idea about the levels of spending on road construction in this country in the 1990s. That was just an appalling contribution by a Minister in charge of legislation.

Let us get a couple of facts straight. In the 1990s the whole motorway construction from Albany right through to Pūhoi was funded to be carried out as a single construction under the National Government. Under the National Government it was built all the way past Ōrewa. Then Labour was elected and construction stopped, because the Government did not want to spend any money in the area north of Auckland. Labour wanted the money to be spent somewhere else. In Labour’s efforts to spend the money somewhere else, it set up committees—and is still setting up committees—and nothing has happened. Meanwhile, taxpaying New Zealanders are stuck in gridlocked traffic.

A worse performance by that Minister, Rick Barker, was that he did not even know when his own bill commenced. He said that Part 2 comes into effect on 1 April, and it does not. That was correct when he introduced the bill. As it was originally drafted, Part 2 was meant to come into effect on that date. The extra 5c per litre in petrol tax was meant to be imposed on 1 April, but, of course, we all know what happened then, and it is amazing that the Minister did not seem to know that. Dr Cullen became all nervous about it because, as we all know, fuel prices went up. Dr Cullen became all nervous about a further 5c per litre charge going on top of the high fuel prices just before the general election. So let me inform the Minister, who is now back in the chair, that this part does not come into being on 1 April. It will come into being when Dr Cullen says it can.

That is about the most cynical move that I have ever seen. We will have taxation coming into effect in this country when Dr Cullen decides it is politically expedient for it to do so. That is pretty disgraceful. It is appalling that the Minister did not even know that when he made his contribution a few moments ago.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I did—I knew that.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: If the Minister, as he is now saying from the chair, knew that, why did he say that Part 2 comes into effect on 1 April? It does not come into effect on 1 April. That was in the bill that he drafted. But, of course, Dr Cullen had the Finance and Expenditure Committee change that. The Labour members on the select committee, under Dr Cullen’s instructions, have changed it, so that Part 2 now comes into effect when Dr Cullen decides it will come into effect. We will have an increase in taxation when Dr Cullen decides on it. It cannot be before 1 April, but the tax will come in when Dr Cullen considers it politically expedient to tax motorists further.

I object to that, as does the National Party. We find that to be a dishonest approach to taxation. If Labour thinks that is the best way to fund roading construction—which is desperately needed—it should bring the law in and let the voters have their say on it, instead of having a weaselly clause that enables the Government to delay the extra 5c per litre in petrol tax until after the election. It will not matter how high petrol prices are after the election. If Labour wins the next general election we can bet our bottom dollar that the day after it wins, lo and behold, the cost of petrol will go up by 5c a litre. But it will not go up before the election unless there is a massive reduction in petrol prices, and I do not think that that is about to happen.

Parliament should not be asked to pass such politically cynical legislation, especially when the Minister in charge of the bill did not even know what he was doing.

I have listened to the arguments about this legislation. Rick Barker, the Minister of Customs, said his little piece, and it was clear that he did not understand the bill. I am quite sure that he had no involvement in drafting it; Michael Cullen has obviously been the one behind it. This bill brings in another tax on the motorist. We in New Zealand First want to make it clear that we are opposed to a further tax on the motorist. This measure is not necessary. The Government collects approximately $700 million from the motorist every year that is not spent on the roads.

We in New Zealand First suggest that the Government looks hard at where that money is going, because that money could be going towards the roads. It could be going towards relieving the problems right throughout the country. In Canterbury there are a number of roads that are desperately needed to unclog the rush hour traffic. The same goes for Wellington, for Tauranga, and—in an even bigger way—for the largest city of New Zealand, Auckland. In Auckland the traffic grinds to a halt, not just for an hour but for 3 to 4 hours in the morning, and again in the afternoon. That means that the ports cannot operate properly. The Minister should have a look at this bill. He does not need to charge the motorist an extra 5.6c per litre of petrol. The motorist does not need it. Along with the high oil prices, this measure is another kick in the teeth for motorists. The Minister does not need to add on this tax. He has $700 million per year that could be put towards roading.

Let us have a look at some of the roads that are desperately needed. The Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2), which Maurice and Lockwood Smith were talking about—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Maurice?

Maurice Williamson, not the Morris car.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I was responding to the Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You must not use nicknames.

Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith both referred to ALPURT B2. It is a road that should have been completed; it has been in the pipeline for more than 10 years now. Five of those years were spent under the National Government, and we are now into the sixth year of this Government. The Labour Government has seen that the road is required, and the Environment Court said that the road had to be completed and out of the centre of Ōrewa by December 2003. That deadline was extended by 1 more year. At this stage, that particular intersection is outside the realms of what the resource consent allowed.

The Government needs to get serious about the roads and put money into the roads as it is needed. My colleague Peter Brown got the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen to admit that he was going to defer the enactment date of this legislation because the extra 5.6c per litre tax on petrol would look very bad in an election year. The Minister wrongly identified that this provision would come into effect on 1 April of this year. It will not; the Minister knows that. It is up to Dr Cullen to decide when it is expedient to introduce the extra tax. I tell members that it will not be expedient to do so before this election. So why, then, are we putting this extra tax on petrol if it is to be deferred until after the election? It is not necessary. The Government has the $700 million. It should spend it on the roads, and spend it now in order to make sure that the roading system is up to the standard needed in this new millennium.

I take issue with United Future. It claims to be against a tax on a tax, yet it is supporting this legislation, which includes a provision to put GST on a further petrol tax. That is another tax on a tax. I thought United Future was against taxes on taxes, but this bill allows for that and United Future supports it. Its members should be ashamed, and they know it.

I will respond to the previous speaker, who asked a question—a rhetorical question, perhaps—about why we are not spending the money now available on the roads. Well, there is an extraordinarily simple reason why that is not happening. It is called the Resource Management Act. They are three of the most despised words—[Interruption] Yes, we should all make the sign of the cross. The Resource Management Act is the Dracula of all the appalling legislation under which this country is suffering. We can confidently predict that there will be no substantial roads built in this country as long as the Resource Management Act exists in its present form.

I live in Coal Creek near Roxburgh, in Central Otago. I can go to Auckland and object to Aucklanders having decent roads, I can quite legitimately object to the construction of highways in Auckland that would allow for the free flow of traffic up and down through that massive infrastructure. I can do that. That is an absolute nonsense.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: You don’t even have to go there. You can do it from where you live.

Exactly. I might even try that one of these days. But that is the nonsense of this whole bill. We are collecting a tax to spend, so that “Scrooge McCullen” can wallow in his massive—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member cannot refer to members by nicknames or Christian names. He should look at Speakers’ rulings 26/7 and 26/8. He will use the member’s full name or title.

Thank you for that direction on the subject of the correct title for the Minister of Finance, Mr Chairman. As has been previously alluded to, there are massive sums of money available right now. It is really a question of whether the Government wants to prioritise its spending. Does it think the movement of traffic throughout the country, especially Auckland, is important? If it does think that is important, there is one thing it must do: it must amend the Resource Management Act and make it workable. I am only too willing to help the Government on that subject.

But there is no need to whack the productive sector, the people who get out of bed in the morning and go to work in their cars, or even jump on the bus from time to time, I guess. There is especially no need to whack the people of rural New Zealand, whom I represent in this House, who fill their trucks, the old Toyota, or the Nissan, or whatever it might be, with petrol—yes, they use petrol, not just diesel—and use their own farm tracks and their own infrastructure. The money from their petrol tax goes somewhere else. That is a nonsense, and it appals the people of rural New Zealand.

The capital that the Government will accumulate under this tax will sit there and accumulate interest. The Government will take a whack on that interest as well—it will take tax on that interest. The capital will sit there for years to come, because, in fact, we will not be able to spend the money on the roads due to the Resource Management Act.

There is another point I would like to make on the issue of indexing this tax to inflation. If the Government stopped spending—if it held its expenditure to, say, the last Budget’s expenditure—then inflation would drop to virtually zero. It is Governments that cause inflation in this country, not the public. If Government expenditure was held to previous levels, inflation would not be a problem in this country. So we have the dual scourge of Government spending and Government taxation, which will destroy, ultimately, the infrastructure in this country. There have been no significant developments in this country since the Resource Management Act was passed—that is, no developments worth over $300 million to $500 million have occurred in the last 10 years. So how on earth will the roads be built with this tax that will be imposed?

I have been sitting here during the debate wondering—particularly after the Minister of Customs’ contribution—why it is that the real transport Minister, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, the Minister for Transport Safety, is not sitting in the chair instead of the Minister of Customs, Rick Barker, who is a relatively new Minister and who clearly has no notion whatsoever what the bill is about. That Minister said to me that I was wrong, that we do not have taxation without representation, but I once again submit to him that this bill provides for the raising of taxes by the power of the executive through indexing that tax to the consumer price index. It will not have to come back to Parliament. I say to him again that he should jump to his feet, defend that position, and tell me where else a Westminster system has such a draconian tax as that.

Let me also remind the Minister in the chair that before me here I have a couple of cards. The pictures on them look vaguely like our Prime Minister—one cannot be sure just by the pictures—but there is no doubt that the pictures are of Helen Clark, when one turns them over and reads the statement written on the back. This is the 1999 pledge: “My commitments are: no rise in income tax for 95 percent of taxpayers earning under $60,000, and no increase in GST.”

Here is a question for the Minister—I am sure he will be able to answer it. Is it true that the 5c petrol tax in this bill also includes GST? There is a question. Is that not an increase in GST? I am sure the Minister will be able to answer that. It may not be an increase in the rate of GST, but it is certainly an increase in the total take.

Then I go to another card. This one came out around 2002, for members who have forgotten it. It is called “Next Steps”. Once again it states on the back: “Our commitments to you: no rise in the rates of income tax, GST, or company tax.” That may be as it stands, but the Minister should tell me whether an extra 5.6 percent on every “Joe Hard-worker” and every company out there, plus GST, is not directly contrary to the pledge on this card. Is it not? Maybe it is sophistry and maybe one can use the spin that comes from the ninth floor to manoeuvre one’s way out of it; maybe not. I know for a fact that the real transport Minister, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, certainly will not find this a popular tax to sell in New Plymouth, the energy capital of New Zealand. I know he will be struggling in trying to get the good citizens of New Plymouth to see the merit of it, as I know there are a huge amount of projects up there on the drawing board that cannot get through the Resource Management Act process. That member will also know that $230 million - odd was left unspent by Transfund, through Transit; $230 million - plus was handed back to the consolidated account because projects that are on the drawing board could not get consent.

Here we are today, passing yet another sneaky little Labour tax through Parliament in the dead of night, as usual, when people are out working and doing what they need to be doing and when nobody is listening to Parliament on the radio—although they might be because they could be in the gridlock on the Auckland motorway on the way home—and will not know that this debate is going on. That Minister sits there and says that this tax is in the best interests of New Zealand because we will build new roads. I say to that Minister that that is an absolute joke. This will not fix the roading problems. The Government has a $7 billion surplus but yet again, it says to “Joe Hard-worker” out there, the blue-collar, traditional Labour voter: “Look, front up again. We’ve only stung you with 24 new taxes. Here’s another one. You can pay. It doesn’t matter that you’re $250 a week behind your Australian colleagues already. That doesn’t matter, and look, we will fix your roads.”

I want to take a brief call on the title debate on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. I think it is fair to say that there are some things in Parliament that we agree about and some things we disagree about. The thing we agree about is the fact that New Zealand desperately needs new roads. I must say that I am absolutely amazed at the capacity of our fellow countrymen to put up with the shocking roading conditions in this country, particularly in Auckland.

I was reminded during John Key’s speech of my days before I entered Parliament, when I used to regularly fly up to Auckland for a board meeting on Pah Road, about halfway between the airport and the city. I would get up in the morning in my home in Wellington, get dressed, do all the usual things, have breakfast, get a cab to the airport, and get a plane to Auckland. I would then get a cab from the Auckland airport to my meeting at Pah Road and when I got there I would find that we could not start the meeting, because a couple of my fellow directors had not arrived from the North Shore.

That used to happen regularly. I am absolutely staggered that we in this country have this great capacity to put up with intolerable roads. Really, the people of this country have just about had it up to the eyeballs with all of us in this Parliament and with every single party. They are looking to us to show some leadership and to have some roads built. Whatever anyone may think about that 5c, at least there is the express intention to get on and do the job. But I say to the Government and to the other parties: “Look, let’s get on and start building some roads. Let’s cut through the red tape, let’s use the PPP thing that’s in the transport legislation, and get on with the job. If necessary, let’s borrow some money, but for goodness sake, let’s get on and start building some roads, particularly in Auckland.”

It may be that the Resource Management Act is holding it up, and Gerard Eckhoff might be right about that being the problem. Everybody here identifies a problem, but it is up to this Parliament to start to solve the problem and get on and start building the roads. That is my first point.

The second point is that we disagree on something in this Parliament and that is that every party in this Parliament, with the single exception of the Labour Party, believes that it is time to cut the rate of tax that is being levied on the citizens of this country. Even the Progressives, and everybody else here, will keep at the Government, because a Budget is coming up, and the fact of the matter is that everybody is saying, and I agree with them entirely, that New Zealand households are burdened with huge debts at the moment—mortgages, credit cards, you name it, and the rate of tax that we are imposing on our fellow citizens is too heavy. It has become a heavy burden on their shoulders.

It is about time that the Government said: “Look, we recognise that. We know that we have a great dosh of money in the bank.” It is time the Government started to take seriously the action of cutting taxes in this country.

I appeal again to the Government, as I have throughout this debate, and say to it that today we are increasing a tax, but it has a Budget coming up—in May, the Government, and the Labour Party in particular, will have an opportunity to decrease the tax burden on this country. It should take the opportunity to do that while it is presented, because it will be the last opportunity before the election. If the Government does not do that, and if New Zealanders do not see a tax cut, I say: fine, we will go to the ballot and let the people decide once and for all whether they want lower taxes or to keep on going down the road with a Labour Government to an ever-increasing impost against their pocketbook. I think that most people in New Zealand have said “Enough is enough” when it comes to taxes. Let us try to reverse the trend and start reducing them.

I have to respond to the United Future member’s contribution, because I thought he made a lot of sense. But I cannot understand why, with his impassioned plea to cut tax and cut Government revenue, he will vote for this bill.

💬 Gordon Copeland: I’m not the Government.

He is not the Government, but he will support it. Why is he supporting it? I have given up on United Future’s philosophy and principles. I do not think it understands its own philosophy, and it seems to have lost its principles a long way down the route.

I shall take the House back a few years to when the Government first became the Government, in 1999. There was a senior Minister, I think he was Deputy Prime Minister at the time, who called himself the “Minister of Low Petrol Prices”, and that was the Hon Jim Anderton. Do members remember him? Do they remember that? He was the “Minister of Low Petrol Prices”, albeit self-appointed, but, boy, did he brag about that title! He told all and sundry that that was who he was. What has happened since? We have had the highest petrol prices ever in the history of this country, only a few weeks ago oil companies were announcing record profits, and the Government takes from the petrol motorist more taxation than ever before. So I think the “Minister of Low Petrol Prices” was an abject failure. He got it totally wrong. He is supporting this bill, and his colleagues are following that support. They are totally wrong.

The Minister of Customs took an earlier call. I invite him to take another one now to answer the question I will put before him. I know the answer. Where will this regional tax be spent? Will there be any prohibitions on a particular region using that tax? For example, can Tauranga use the regional tax that will be collected under this measure on the harbour bridge link? I can tell the Minister that the answer is no, and that is a disgrace. The Government will impose 5.6c on every petrol motorist, on the basis that the money will go to the regions for them to use it as they wish, but it will say that those areas cannot use it on their No. 1 road priority if it is tollable. It will whack them for that, too. That is—no, I cannot say that. But I will say that that sort of stance is hypocritical to say the least.

I know that the contractors in this country want certainty; they are making that clear by press statement and media report. So does the general public. So what is certain about this bill? When will it come in? When will it start? Nobody knows. Will we pull out a raffle ticket? I tell the Minister now that if he does not put in this measure before the next election, then it will not occur, because New Zealand First will have a presence in this Parliament far greater than it has now, and we will not allow it to be proceeded with. The Minister should show some gumption and tell us that it will come in next week or the week after. If he waits until the election, it is dead and buried—I can tell him that. New Zealand First will not have a bar of the petrol motorist being lumbered with another 5.6c.

💬 Jill Pettis: So how are you going to build the roads?

How will I organise the roads? I shall tell you very, very briefly, but Gordon Copeland—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I am answering the question. I like questions from the Government. She’s showing some interest.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing me into the debate.

People can go down any road in this country and see buildings most of which are mortgaged. Most of the vehicles on the road, be they trucks or vehicles, are either paid for by hire purchase or leased. In other words, where it is possible, where it is needed, people borrow against future income. Over the next 10 years this Government will take—less this tax—something like $16 billion, and an additional $7 billion that goes into the Crown account. That is $23 billion that, if necessary, we could borrow against. It is not borrow and spend; it is borrowing to get the roads moving. If the member took the trouble to read the Allen report—and it is written in simple English; I am certain the member could understand it. [Interruption] She could not? It will tell her the economic advantages of borrowing to put the roads in place—to advance the roads.

Why will the Government not say when this measure will come in, or stipulate the criteria? What does the level of the oil price have to be?

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you for that. I am delighted that I was not stopped by a closure motion. My adoring drive time audience will be out there right now, stuck in the traffic, gridlocked, and listening intently to this speech.

Two issues have arisen during the passage of this bill. First, if members seem to be opposed to this bill, then Labour portrays them as not wanting any more roads to be built. Well, let us just get that clear before we then talk about the date this comes into effect. The fact is that if the Labour Government—and I made this point before—between 1984 and 1990, which the Hon Phil Goff was a member of, had wanted to put another 5c on the petrol tax, I could have understood that. During that time the Government accounts were in deficit. Every year it was spending more than it was bringing in. If that Government had wanted some money to spend on more roading projects, clearly, it would have had to find it somewhere. It was already short. Is that the case today? Do we have a Government today that has a deficit on its books? The answer is no. Does it have a really minor surplus that is quite fragile, such that it could not afford to sacrifice even the $200 million that this bill will bring in? The answer is no. What is the surplus? It is about $7,000 million per annum.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Jealous!

Well, actually I am angry more than jealous that we are taking much more off the punters of this country than is needed. But let us just take the petrol tax that is taken off them. I challenge Clayton Cosgrove to do one of his little roadside tricks as he did with the boy racer and come with me to the southern motorway in Auckland. We will stand on the side of the road with a sign saying: “Honk if you think the Government should take another 5c in petrol tax from you.” I tell that member that we will be standing all day by the side of that motorway before we hear a honk, because the public do not think it is needed. They do think we need some more infrastructure, but they know that the Government has a $7 billion surplus, and they know that the Government takes $600 million a year in petrol tax that does not go on the roads. Yes, other parts of the petrol tax do, but $600 million does not.

Then we get to what I think is the most cynical move of all, and that is the date that this increase will come into effect. When the bill was introduced the Government was flying high. Nothing could stand in its way. It was going to be a third-term Labour Government—something the world has dreaded for years, but it was looking as if it might be a possibility. So it made the date 1 April. That is when this measure was to come into effect. But suddenly Michael Cullen found a cold wind blowing up his kilt, and he went: “Oh dear! We’ve got an election coming up not long after that. We’ve got high petrol prices worldwide.” I do not blame Jim Anderton for the entire world petrol price being high; I blame him for part of it—because I blame Jim Anderton for nearly everything—but in fact there has been the Iraq war, supply problems, Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries problems, and so on. But I ask the Minister what the price of a barrel of light sweet crude oil is today, or what a barrel of Brent crude oil costs today.

💬 Peter Brown: $44.

It is about US$44 or US$45. So what Michael Cullen has done with this cynical little amendment is make this increase come into effect not on 1 April—goodness me no; that would be just as the election campaign was getting away—but when the timing is right. We all know what that means. It means that as soon as he has an election under his belt, so that the increase will not cost him, he will be straight in. Michael Cullen will have the papers drawn up; he will have them waiting at the Cabinet Office for the seal to be put on them. The good news is he will not actually be in Government after the next election to do it.

However, here is the point. Here is the challenge, just in case that dreadful prospect happens. What if, after the election, it costs US$45 for a barrel of Brent crude oil? That is what it costs right now, and it probably is too high, as the Minister says. The reason why he does not want to bring the increase into effect on 1 April is nothing to do with elections, nothing to do with politics, and nothing to do with anger from the public about being socked even more tax; it is just about the price of crude oil. All right; can I get a commitment from the Minister in the chair that if light sweet crude oil or Brent crude oil stays at the US$45 mark after the election, the same attitude will apply, and this increase will not come in? There is not a mutter, not a murmur, not a whisper. How is that—not a mutter, not a murmur, not a whisper? What if world petrol prices stay at the same level they are now? The increase will not be brought in because of high petrol prices; that is the answer from the Minister of Finance—he will not bring it in because of high petrol prices. But when asked whether, if petrol prices are at that same level after the election, he would carry on with that attitude, there is not a mutter, not a murmur, not a whisper.

I move, That the question be now put.