Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill

I am waiting for the Minister. [Interruption] I can see this is a popular call, Mr Brownlee.

I am sorry, but the previous speaker, Brendan Horan, was a cure for insomnia. He certainly had me in a deep trance. I move, That the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. The bill is a very straightforward response to the pressing need for additional investment in the land transport network. Part 1 amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to give effect to the decision to increase the excise and excise-equivalent duty on motor spirits—petrol—by 3c a litre on 1 July 2013, 1 July 2014, and 1 July 2015. These increases will provide additional revenue that allows the Government to continue its significant and much-needed investment in the land transport network.

Part 2 of the bill makes consequential amendments to the regulations to increase the rate at which duties are refunded to people using petrol for off-road, commercial, or other purposes that entitle them to a refund. That would particularly apply to the agricultural sector and also some parts of the tourism sector. Road-user charges, or RUC, will also increase on these dates by an equivalent amount. The mechanism for increasing road-user charges is by Order in Council, so it will be done separately from this bill. The increase in excise duty on petrol will raise approximately $90 million in the year 2013-14, and road-user charge increases will raise around $70 million. This will mean an additional $500 million will be spent on the current National Land Transport Programme 2012-15.

All the money collected from these revenue sources is spent on the roads. In particular, the increase will assist in developing the State highway network, which is crucial in assisting economic growth and enabling greater productivity from the transport network. Specifically, the increases will allow the New Zealand Transport Agency to begin work on four projects in the 2013-14 financial year: the Rangiriri Tamahere-Cambridge sections of the Waikato Expressway, the MacKays to Peka Peka section of the Wellington Northern Corridor, and the four-laning of The Groynes to Sawyers Arms Road and the Johns Road section of the Christchurch Western Corridor. All of these are subject, of course, to regulatory consents.

The Government is committed to delivering the roads of national significance programme in a timely fashion, without placing excessive costs on motorists. By announcing these cost increases, as we did in December of last year, we have given time for motorists to prepare for the increases. The additional cost of travelling 14,000 kilometres per year, which is the average annual distance that is travelled by a New Zealand petrol vehicle with average fuel efficiency of 10 litres per 100 kilometres, is around $45 a year.

Duties on petrol can sometimes be changed by Order in Council, as we did with the increase last year. However, the legislation that allows this does not permit the mechanism to be used to increase duty in three consecutive years. Given the huge benefits that New Zealanders will gain from the increase in land transport expenditure, it is important that this bill is passed before 1 July 2013. In addition, the increases in duties are relatively small in the context of the price of petrol and other vehicle costs. The Automobile Association estimates that the average annual cost of running a compact petrol vehicle is about $3,300 per year. The excise increase in this bill, proposed from 1 July 2013, will increase that amount by 1.4 percent. As I said before, I also signalled these increases in December 2012 to give motorists advance warning that costs would increase.

It is worth noting two things. Firstly, these increases mean that in the time of this Government the increases overall have been comparable to, if not slightly less than, the previous Government’s record over the same period of time. It is worth noting that the time savings that thousands of motorists are making in their journeys, often daily, does add to the fuel efficiency bonus that comes from having good roads.

In closing, by passing this bill Parliament will ensure that Government can respond to the pressing need to progress significant investments in New Zealand’s transport network. I commend the bill to the House.

Back before the 2008 election, when John Key and other National candidates and MPs went around the country campaigning to form the next Government, they told New Zealanders that they were going to bring down taxes. That is what they said. They were going to bring down taxes, they were going to lower costs for New Zealanders, and the Labour Government was taking far too much tax off them. Of course, what they meant—what they really meant—was that they were going to reduce personal tax rates for their mates, and put up costs for everybody else.

Of course, what they did not tell New Zealanders was the whole range of ways that they were going to increase taxes and increase costs for New Zealanders. They did not tell them that early childhood education fees were going to increase by nearly 20 percent under the National-led Government. They did not tell New Zealand families that the so-called voluntary donations to primary schools and secondary schools were going to increase by 31 percent under the National-led Government. They did not tell students and graduates that they were going to put a $50 to $60 levy on all student loans. No, they did not tell them about that tax increase.

They certainly did not tell New Zealanders that the ACC work account was going to be increased by 67 percent, or that the earners account was going to be increased by 23 percent, or that the motor vehicle account was going to be increased by 31 percent. They did not tell New Zealanders that they were going to take away their KiwiSaver tax credit, which is effectively a tax increase. They certainly did not tell New Zealanders that they were going to allow general practitioners’ fees to increase—actually, hang on, they did kind of signal that one. They did signal that one, because remember John Key’s idea about the primary health sector: it is a market. “Frankly, it’s a market.”, he said. So they did kind of signal that they were going to allow costs for people to go and see their doctor to increase. They did not tell New Zealanders that they were going to increase prescription fees from $3 to $5 per prescription, and they did not tell New Zealanders that—

💬 David Bennett: Stick to the bill.

—there was going to be an overall increase in fuel excise tax, David Bennett, of 18.8 percent over the period of time that this Government has been in power.

What are all those tax increases and cost increases all about? They are about getting this Government just squeaking over the line to surplus in 2014-15. That is what this tax increase is really about. It is about the fact that the Government made a promise that it would get New Zealand back into surplus, and, because of its failure to get the economy working again, it has had to go and find every single little penny down the back of the couch to try to get New Zealand back into surplus. That is what this tax increase that this Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill—

💬 Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed the honourable David Bennett masticating what appears to be gum, with his mouth wide open—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is irrelevant. The member will sit down. That is just interrupting the flow of the debate and it is unacceptable. We will not have any of that.

Look, this is what John Key said. He said: “National is not going to be raising GST.”—not going to be raising GST. “National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes.” John Key said that back in 2008. Well, it has been proven to be patently untrue.

But what is this all about? The Minister of Transport would have us believe that what this is about is making sure there is enough money to build his roads of national significance. We do know that National is absolutely obsessed not with roads—not with roads, because local roads suffer under a National Government—but with its gigantic holiday highways. That is what National is obsessed with. Actually, if there was some truth to what the Minister said about what this bill is for, that is what it is for.

Why is it that National is so obsessed with these massive, giant, gold-plated holiday highways? Well, there is actually a good book about what this is all about, and it is called The Hollow Men. All we have to do is refer to some of those well-known emails—Don Brash’s email loop—and some of the ideas behind what this focus on highways is all about. An email was sent to Dr Brash and Maurice Williamson from a long-time supporter of ACT and now of National, who thought that a National Party policy to dedicate all revenue from taxes at the petrol pump to roading would be a great platform for getting the support of the country: “I actually think the surpluses should be returned to those who pay them, but the policy outlined above will get the support of the masses and that is the first priority.” So it was not about building an integrated, growth-focused transport network across the country—no, that is not what it is about. It is all about politics—it is all about politics. That is why National is obsessed with these highways.

Again, in another email, Bryan Sinclair forwarded the letter to Brash and others, saying: “I hate to revisit this issue, and I know the fiscal and political issue surrounding this sort of commitment, but I really do agree with the substance ... in terms of vote winning.”—in terms of vote winning or, another way of putting it, vote buying. “He proposed they have a policy saying ‘National will, within 5 years of becoming Government, apply all petrol tax revenue raised ٭solely٭ to roading and transport infrastructure across New Zealand.’ ” So this is all about politics. I get it—I get it. That is why National likes these highways so much—because an integrated transport network that is focused on growth is not exactly the best way to buy votes. What people like to see are nice, tangible pieces of infrastructure that they can see and that they can use. That is what makes people feel good. That is what makes people like David Bennett feel good and what makes Mike Sabin feel good, because they can point to it and they can say: “We did that. We did that.” That is what this is all about.

Compare that with coastal shipping. The benefits of investing in coastal shipping are that you get better allocation of capital, because you can make better use of the capital investment in roads and rail by taking some of the congestion off roads and rail and putting it on coasting shipping. Coastal shipping is far more environmentally positive, because the emissions from coastal shipping per tonne per kilometre are far lower than they are from road or rail. That is actually a more effective use of taxpayers’ money, but you cannot see it, you cannot feel it. Voters do not see the ships going up and down the coastline in the same way that they see highways being built, so National does not like it. It might make economic sense, it might be growth-focused, it might be environmentally focused, it might be the best use of the resources we have in our transport budget, and it might be a more sensible allocation of capital, but National does not like it because the politics do not stack up, even if the economic argument stacks up.

This National Government is very, very good at saying no. It has said no to Auckland, which has come up with a positive, integrated plan for its transport network. Instead of working with the Auckland Council, the Government has decided to go war with the Auckland Council. Before they had even had a conversation about what is the right mix of infrastructure to build and the right mix of revenue to raise the money needed to build that infrastructure, the Government has just said “No, no, no.”, and ruled it all out, without even having a conversation with Len Brown or his team.

It is very good at saying no to rail. It just does not believe in it. It does not want to see rail being used as an important part of an integrated transport structure.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We’re spending a fortune on it. What a silly statement.

The truth is, Gerry Brownlee, that 90 percent of the transport budget is spent on roads and 7 percent is spent on rail. This Government does not believe in rail, it is not supporting rail, and it never will support rail, because the backers of rail are not the financial backers of the National Party in the same way that road transport users are.

National is very good at saying no to anything in the transport network that reduces emissions and improves New Zealand’s impact on the environment. That is what this Government is about. It is about saying no to an integrated transport network, it is about saying no to proper capital allocation, and it is about saying no to a growth agenda. It is about saying yes to political expediency and the transport infrastructure that is most likely to buy votes. That is why New Zealanders’ taxes are going up under National and that is why the costs to New Zealand families are going up under National. That is not what it promised, but, of course, broken promises are exactly what we have come to expect from this National Government.

That was the worst speech I have ever heard from a Labour Party spokesperson on transport. You know they are in trouble when they talk about The Hollow Men, and then they have to refer to their notes for 7 minutes out of the 10. I was actually very disappointed that Julie Anne Genter was not in the Chamber for the start of that speech, but then she came in. I knew when she came in that the real spokesperson on transport for the left had come in. Julie Anne Genter should be leading off this debate for the left, not Iain Lees-Galloway. Iain Lees-Galloway does not know what he is talking about. What money comes into transport goes out, so this money is being spent on transport initiatives, and it is not all about roads. Look at the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan; there is money in the Budget for that. Those members are being disingenuous and—

💬 Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just wondering whether the person who is speaking at the moment would get to the point about the bill. We have not heard it yet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look, that is another example of interrupting the flow of the debate. I am the judge of that.

I do not actually mind being interrupted by Denise Roche, because Denise Roche knows that the Labour Party is in trouble. Julie Anne Genter will not interrupt, because it is about her taking over from Iain Lees-Galloway on these issues. She will be taking over from Iain Lees-Galloway, because he is just another example of the weak, meek Labour Party, which sits across from us here today, and it is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. The money that has been coming into transport is being spent on transport, and it goes to rail as well as roads, and it goes to local roads as well as State highways. There is money for all in there.

I want to see Mr Iain Lees-Galloway come to Hamilton. In the next year he will be summoned to Hamilton with his leader, Mr Shearer, if Mr Shearer is still the leader then. They will have to meet the mayor, Mr Gallagher, one of their ex-colleagues, and they will have to explain their lack of funding for the Waikato Expressway. And I bet you—I bet you—they will come to Hamilton and they will have all the fanfare. They will come up there and they will meet with those people. They will go into the room and they will say: “Look, we can’t say anything in public. We just can’t say it in public, but we will actually do it. We will actually do it, but we can’t say it in public.”

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Julie Anne won’t let them.

But Julie Anne will not let them. That is right. And that is the problem that they are going to have. Once they say that one new road of national significance—which the Waikato Expressway is, and it is a good road—is right, the whole thing falls over. Their arguments fall over and Julie Anne Genter will have you for dinner.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Point of order—

That is—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Point of order. [Interruption] Sit down. Point of order, Brendon Horan.

💬 Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that it is a little informal, but is it the practice of this House to call members by their first name when that member never interjected?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look, if the member brings frivolous points of order, I will be asking him to leave. I am the judge of that. I am calling David Bennett.

I have said enough.

Well, here we are. It is just after 20 past 11 on Saturday morning, and—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Just after morning tea time.

Oh, Jonathan Coleman is back on it again. Talk to Gerry Brownlee, the man next to you, Jonathan; do not talk to me. It is 20 past 11—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, full name.

Sorry. Jonathan Coleman, talk to the man next to you; do not talk to me. It is just after 20 past 11 on a Saturday morning, and we finally get to some actual Budget legislation from this Government, as opposed to its shoving bills through under urgency to make up for the mistakes it has made. Just briefly, I refer members on the other side of the House to Professor Andrew Geddis’ blog, which was written last night, entitled “I think National just broke our constitution”. That is what we have been through over the last few nights in this House.

This bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, is about one thing, and one thing only. It is about raising taxes this year, next year, and the year after, in order to do a fiddle and a fudge, to get the Government to its wafer-thin surplus—that is it. It is nothing more than politics. It is nothing more than taking money out of the pockets of New Zealanders so that National can achieve its political goal of getting to that wafer-thin surplus. There is so much contortion in this Budget for the Government to find its way to its surplus, you know, that the Barnum and Bailey circus is on the phone—it wants Bill English in there. That is what the Government is doing. It is shifting the money around to make it look like there is a surplus, and the reality is that it is doing that by fudging this particular bill.

It is very important, I think, to make sure that we echo the point that has been made earlier by Iain Lees-Galloway. This bill, and the other Budget legislation, is about shifting the burden of debt away from the Government and on to ordinary New Zealanders. That is what this Budget is about. The Government can try to claim this surplus—a surplus, I might add, that will disappear into thin air with one back-down. We saw it last year with the class sizes. It had to back down and that was it—the surplus was gone. It is that wafer-thin that it could go with one Hekia Parata back-down. A brain fade from John Key and it is all over—there is no more surplus—and the Government has got there only off the backs of ordinary New Zealanders. Once again, this is the pattern of this Government. It is fiddling and fudging the books to make it look like it is delivering its political goal of a surplus and, in reality, taking that money away from New Zealanders.

This Government’s record on tax legislation deserves some analysis. Iain Lees-Galloway has already talked about the promises that were made up and down the country by John Key and other National MPs about the fact that they would not be raising taxes; they would be cutting taxes. Well, National came in and it cut some taxes. That is absolutely true—40 percent of those tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of New Zealanders. That is the first fudge. That is the first broken promise. The broken promise—apparently, the tax cuts, John Key said, were going to be all about the middle class. No, they were not; they were about John Key’s mates. That was the first problem.

But what followed from there—what followed from there—was a pattern of consistent tax increases that affected ordinary New Zealanders. GST—up, under this Government. Who is affected the most by an increase in GST? People on low and modest incomes, who spend a higher percentage of their income on the basics of life. They are the people who are affected. That was a tax increase from this Government. Then we have seen, consistently, overcharging on ACC. Time after time, ACC has been used in classic Nick Smith fashion, to manufacture a crisis, ramp up the levies, use that to fudge the books, and then he will bring them down and say that he has saved everything—a classic Nick Smith response. Then, as Iain Lees-Galloway has said, we have seen a 20 percent increase in early childhood education costs, prescription fees going up, repayment rates on student loans—all of these are tax increases, just as this bill is today. And just as this bill does today, it shifts the burden on to ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders, who are already stretched.

But one thing that has come out of the last few days too is the way in which National is starting to manipulate this Budget around to try to shift a bit of blame. I have had people from Christchurch calling through to me, disgusted by the comments they have seen from both Gerry Brownlee and John Key about shifting the burden. John Key went on television and said: “New Zealanders right across the country actually [have] to go without so that money can go into Christchurch as a priority.” That is what John Key said to New Zealanders. That is a disgraceful way to treat the people of Canterbury, who have been through so much, to suddenly use them as a pawn in the Government’s game about getting back to this wafer-thin surplus. And I am also told that Gerry Brownlee went on the radio in Christchurch and said that State-owned enterprise sales were needed to fund the rebuild of Christchurch. So, once again, Christchurch gets the blame because this Government is so bereft of ideas that all it can come up with is to sell off the assets and hike up taxes and ACC levies to get itself to its wafer-thin political surplus. That is not good enough. The people of Christchurch deserve far, far better than to be used as a pawn in the National Government’s political game. Gerry Brownlee and John Key need to know that the people of Christchurch are disgusted and appalled by that kind of treatment.

But if we look at this bill in the context of this overall Budget, it is definitely a fudge and a fix to get into surplus. Also in the Budget are massive contingencies—contingencies in the education budget that we have not seen for a very, very long time. Once again, the Government is manipulating the money. I think of that, actually, as a failure of leadership by the Minister of Education. She should be laying out a clear plan on education spending, but, instead, that education budget is being used, along with this petrol tax hike, to give the impression that this Government is doing something about getting New Zealand’s books in order. The way that this Government has gone about this Budget, in my view, is a hoax on New Zealanders. It is a sham of a surplus. This is not the kind of bill that should be coming to this House in this way in a Budget setting, because this Government told New Zealanders time and time again that it would not be increasing their taxes, and yet this year, next year, and the year after, this bill will increase petrol taxes.

It is useful to refer to the regulatory impact statement, because what that tells us is that the—[Interruption] See, there is a regulatory impact statement for this one. The Minister is to be credited for doing better than his colleagues in the National Government who have failed to produce a regulatory impact statement. But when you actually look at the regulatory impact statement, yes, it is a 3c a litre increase over those years. That represents the best part of a 6 percent increase every year in the price of petrol caused by this Government. This Government did not talk about this. When Bill English stood up, he did not talk about this. He did not say: “I am acknowledging I am doing this. I am putting up taxes. I am breaking the promises that John Key has made to New Zealanders.” Instead, here we are on a Saturday morning, with National shoving this bill through under urgency. Well, it is time New Zealanders heard the truth about this. This Government has fudged and fiddled with the numbers in this Budget to give the impression that it is getting back to surplus. That is being done off the back of hard-working New Zealanders.

This bill is a continuation of this Government’s approach: to tinker with the economy to get short-term gain. We will come back in later calls to the question of the transport funding, but let us not be under any illusion. This is a Government that is prepared to see a two-speed economy, where vested interests and speculators get ahead, and where exporters and manufacturers and ordinary New Zealanders are left behind. That is the lesson of this Budget. We will have a two-speed economy where National’s mates get ahead, and ordinary New Zealanders are taxed more, have to pay more, and get worse services. This bill is an emblem of this Government’s failure to grow a sustainable economy and a failure to create jobs. It has to put up petrol taxes just to get to its wafer-thin surplus.

I rise to take a call on the—

💬 Hon Member: What’s it called?

—bill that raises petrol taxes, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. This bill raises petrol taxes. Why does National need to put up the petrol tax? It is essentially for two reasons. The first reason, and I think this is a reason—[Interruption] Oh, I have got a copy, thank you, Minister Brownlee—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I would actually like to hear what the member is saying, so please give her that courtesy.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We just want to know whether she knows which bill she is talking about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure she does.

Actually, I was very busy reading the regulatory impact statement, which we just got on this bill, so I did not have the title right in front of me, but it is very clear what this bill does. What it does is put up the petrol tax. So why does National need to put up the petrol tax? Firstly, it is because people are driving less. They have been driving less since before 2006, and this is very clear in New Zealand Transport Agency data. It shows that the number of vehicles on State highways are down. Vehicle volumes on State highways have been declining and the population has been increasing, so that means per capita vehicle kilometres travelled are way down. This is a trend that we have seen all around OECD countries. It is not that surprising. But, unfortunately, it has not yet been reflected in the Government’s transport funding priorities.

The second reason the Government has to put up the petrol tax is that it has mismanaged the transport budget. This is really clear in the regulatory impact statement, which says that the priorities that the Government has set specifically for the roads of so-called national significance, which are really just three very big, very expensive motorway projects that all have benefit to cost ratios of around 1 or less than 1—really only 1, if you exaggerate the benefits. So it has got this huge commitment to building motorways at a time when traffic is declining and people are driving less.

This pie chart shows the Government’s budget for new capital investment in infrastructure over the next 3 years. The purple bit is all on new State highways—and, of course, it is on only the three new State highways, which are extremely expensive and have a low benefit to cost ratio. There is a tiny little slice going into local roads, so who is going to pick up the tab for local roads? Well, it is not road users; it is ratepayers. Road users do not pay directly for capital investment in new roads. If they did, we would not be able to fund them. If users of Transmission Gully or the Waikato Expressway were asked to pay directly for the billions of dollars that are going to be put into those projects, it would never cover the cost of building those projects. That is why the Government has had to put up the petrol tax.

Essentially, although we hear it a lot from the Government that roads are user-pays, that is not the reality. The reality is that new capital expenditure is funded by users of roads everywhere in the country through marginal increases in petrol tax. That means that the use of the road does not necessarily reflect the cost of it because people do not pay for it directly. Secondly, more than 50 percent of all vehicle trips travelled are on local roads. This is data that came through in an Official Information Act request to the Minister of Transport. The Government should know that more than half of all vehicle trips are happening on local roads, and local roads are half-funded by ratepayers, not directly by road users.

So at the moment what we have is a highly vehicle-dependent transport system. That transport system forces us to spend billions of dollars actually increasing our current account deficit because we are importing oil, which has become much more expensive. Over the last 10 years oil prices have doubled—they have doubled in the last decade—and for that reason, even though we are not importing any more oil and people are driving less, we are paying twice as much for it.

You would think that if the National Government was concerned about “New Zealand Inc.”, it would care about reducing our current account deficit and would see that there is an opportunity to reduce our current account deficit by reducing our reliance on very expensive imported oil. But obviously it does not, because what it is doing is prioritising all of the spending in the transport budget on projects that do not give New Zealanders choices. They do not give New Zealanders the choice to save money on oil by taking public transport, by walking or cycling, or by letting their kids walk and cycle safely to school. That is a very cost-effective opportunity not only to reduce congestion but to allow people to get around to the places they need to go without having to fork out for expensive imported oil and also having to pay more on petrol taxes.

Saying that you have to spend all of the petrol tax or road-user charges on new roads is like saying that the alcohol tax should be used to build new bars. It is ridiculous. What we need to do is balance—rebalance—our transport system.

What the Green Party would say is that not all taxes are bad. It is important to distinguish between two types of taxes. There are taxes that are just for raising revenue. You can tax employment, you can tax income, but those are good things. Why would we want to tax good things? We do not want to tax good things just for the purpose of raising revenue. The Green Party’s tax policies would like to see a shift—and this is best-practice economics, which I know no one in the National Party has ever been exposed to. If you read The Economist, for example, it was saying that higher petrol taxes are a great way to tax away vulnerability. Basically, we know petrol is going to be getting more expensive. We know that it is polluting. We know that we have passed 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that that is a major problem for humanity—and, you know, you would hope that those members would care about the future of humanity.

So there is an imperative that we reduce our consumption of fossil fuel, and transport is a real opportunity to do that in a win-win way so people can spend less money on getting around. That is good for the economy. We would have less carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere, which is good because it means humanity can continue to survive for generations into the future and have a high quality of life. So it is imperative that we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for economic reasons and so that we can survive as a species. Transport offers us this great opportunity.

So the Green Party can support a slow, moderated increase to the petrol tax as part of a way of enabling our transport system and our economy to become more resilient and less dependent on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the projects that the National Government is prioritising are simply the worst way you could possibly invest in the future of transport right now, in 2013. I cannot think of a worse way.

We have got all the data that shows us that new roads have diminishing marginal returns. They are not opening up new links to new areas; they are in places where we already have road links. The best use of our money is going to be using our existing road network smarter, using it better. Part of that is investing in the complementary alternatives to the road—which are our rail network, which has been severely underinvested in for many, many years; coastal shipping; and, in our towns and cities, safe walking and cycling for children and adults who would like to be able to get around without having to jump in their car and spend a ton of money on petrol—and investing in public transport, where it makes sense. It does make a lot of economic sense once you take a broader perspective on the benefits.

It is really essential that New Zealanders have choice, and this Government is not giving them choice. What it is doing is putting up the petrol tax and then putting all of the money into projects many of them will not even use on a daily basis. You know, the percentage of vehicle trips on Transmission Gully will be less than on many arterial roads in Auckland, so it will be the Aucklanders who are sitting in traffic because the Government has refused to fund the city rail link and other smart options who will be paying the fuel taxes that will be paying back the loan on Transmission Gully, which is going to serve only about 10,000 people a day. The rail network in Auckland currently carries 45,000 people a day on weekdays and, with the city rail link, it could carry twice that many people. It could take the equivalent of 12 motorway lanes of traffic off the roads, and certainly that is a good use of road users’ money if ever there was one.

So what this Government is doing is extremely short-sighted and irresponsible. It is not going to give us a resilient transport system. It is not going to protect the economy from high oil prices. It leaves us in an oil-dependent situation, which is going to worsen our current account deficit, which is bad for the economy. Thank you.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the member from the Green Party Julie Anne Genter, who has just resumed her seat—the member who can see Russia from her kitchen window. It is ironic that she comes from a country that has more roads than just about anywhere else, but comes here and says we should all hop on a loopedy-loop rail loop—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Fruit loop.

—or fruit loop, yes, or fruit loop—and ride unicycles, and carry logs to market on unicycles. What we have heard is another good example of the loony left, and what it does is it helps to provide contrast to the sensible work that this Government is doing. What we have here is a Minister, Gerry Brownlee, who is not only rebuilding Christchurch but is rebuilding New Zealand’s roading network. Parties like that like to talk about it but actually put no investment into it. This bill goes to the heart of making sure that that can be achieved.

Iain Lees-Galloway—I picked up on his speech—

💬 David Bennett: Who?

Iain Lees-Galloway.

💬 David Bennett: Who’s he?

Well, I am not sure, but I think that was his name. He was talking about that State highway, the Pūhoi motorway. This is the favourite of the left, the poverty whipping boy of Northland. Those members go up there, have fish and chips at the Mangonui fish and chip shop, have a few photo shots, and then come back down here and talk about getting rid of that road—the road that they call the “Holiday Highway”, which infuriates everyone in Northland. Sure, some holidaymakers do use that road, but so does $800 million of the Northland economy making its way through to Auckland. So whenever the Labour Party makes mention of that—and maybe it is not popular with everybody. I think there are actually three people in Auckland who do not think that the Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway is a good idea: the three Labour Party supporters in Auckland. Actually, to be fair, I think one of them may be a Mana Party supporter. I am not too sure; they sort of cross over a little bit. This is a sensible bill and it provides for the financial infrastructure that will help us build our roading infrastructure. I commend it to the House.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. In so doing I send greetings to people around New Zealand. In particular, I send greetings to the people of Dipton, where Bill English’s holiday home is located. I send greetings to you in the knowledge that on 1 July in Dipton you will be paying another 3c a litre to pay for the roads of national significance—most of which are north of Taupō. I send greetings to the people of Bluff, to the people of Hokitika, to the people of Nelson. I send greetings to the people of Waipukurau, my old home town, and to the people of Gisborne, who do not have a rail connection any more. I send greetings to the people of the East Coast, who no longer have a rail connection.

I also particularly send greetings to the people of Pipiwai up in Northland, who have experienced dust problems on their local roads. The people of Pipiwai have suffered incredible dust problems up there, because this Government sees more importance in its select few roads of national significance. It sees more importance in its select few roads of national significance than in the people of Pipiwai, who have to put up with dust, day in, day out, year in, year out, because this Government has cut the subsidies to rural regional New Zealand. Rural regional New Zealand is the area that is suffering from this Government. I am the spokesman for local government for New Zealand First. We are hearing constantly from local authorities and from people around New Zealand that their local roads, their local rural roads, their local regional roads are going backwards because this Government is putting all the focus on its select few roads of national significance.

I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the statement made by Gerry Brownlee in his press statement on 18 December 2012 when it was first announced that these 3c per litre excise tax increases would be starting as of 1 July this year, with another 3c increase on 1 July 2014, and another 3c increase on 1 July 2015. Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Transport, said: “The series of July increases will also ready the [National Land Transport] Fund for investment in upper North Island transport projects beyond the RoNS programme.” So Mr Brownlee stated in December that these increases starting this coming month are basically to provide for the investment in the upper North Island transport projects beyond the roads of national significance.

Again, I say to the people of Dipton, to the people of Bluff, to the people of Hokitika, to the people of Nelson, to the people of Waipukurau, and to the people up in Pipiwai that I hope that they are happy that in a month’s time, when their fuel goes up by 3c a litre, they will be paying for the benefit of a select area of New Zealand, the upper North Island, while the rest of New Zealand basically suffers. That is not good enough. That is not good enough. We all live in one country. We are all New Zealanders. We all deserve to have a fair share of what is available and we all deserve to be treated fairly. What this Government is doing is selecting specific areas where it sees the most votes, where it sees the most opportunities, and where it sees the best return for itself.

Why is it that we are having to have these 3c increases this year, next year, and the year after? Well, partly, it is because a couple of years ago this same Government slashed nearly $2 billion off the income taxes of the top 10 percent of earners in this country. The top 10 percent of earners in this country received significant income tax cuts. Mr John Key himself got $1,000 extra back as a result of the tax cuts. The big, tall Scotsman who was running Telecom, Paul Reynolds, who was on many millions of dollars per year, received $5,000 a week of tax cuts—$5,000 a week of tax cuts—from those tax cuts that National put through a couple of years ago.

So all the high rollers, all the wealthy people, have all seen some very significant improvements in their own personal wealth—including all the Ministers on a quarter of a million dollars a year—with a significant reduction in their tax. Meanwhile everyday, good, honest, hard-working New Zealanders are going to be asked to spend as of 1 July this year another 3c a litre to fill up their tanks, as of next year another 3c, and the year after another 3c. So, basically, while the likes of the Hon John Banks cruises around in his Bentley in Auckland, while the Ministers cruise around in their big Crown BMW 7 Series and take their tax cuts, and while Mr Key is taking his $1,000 a week, good New Zealanders will be paying for the pleasure of that.

It is very interesting that the current excise tax on fuel, according to the Automobile Association, is 61.129c per litre of fuel—that is the amount of tax: 61.129c on every litre of fuel. The Government is already getting a pretty jolly good share. When you are paying, say, $2.10 a litre, you take off 61c. You already know that 61c of that is going to the Government. It is getting a fair amount of money, and now it is going to add another 9c a litre—by the end of another 3 years, another 9c a litre. It is incredible.

Is it not interesting that it has to do this to help balance its Budget, to help try to find some sort of margin-of-error surplus in 2014-15, which is going to be only in the order of something around $100 million? Imagine if the Government did not have this—and it says it is going to get an extra $90 million a year from these 3c increases to start with. Basically, it would be in the red. It would be in the red. So, basically, you have to be a little bit sceptical and say: “Well, did they do their budgets? Did they do all their figuring? Did they do all their sums? Did they work out all the various things?”. Then you would go: “My goodness! We’re going to be in the red if we don’t find some more money.” The Government said: “Where do we find some more money from the good, average, everyday, hard-working New Zealanders? Ah! Let’s get it from their pockets. Let’s put it through the petrol bowser. Let’s take another 9c a litre by 2015-16, and let’s try to balance the books with some more money out of petrol.”

This is a very disappointing thing for the average New Zealander. Average New Zealanders are being stung at the moment with higher electricity prices, and they will see even higher electricity prices as a result of the sale of Mighty River Power. When Meridian Energy is put on the block and is sold off, average New Zealanders are going to be paying more for their everyday, vital necessities of life. They are paying far more in Auckland for their water as a result of this Government creating a super-city. New Zealanders are paying far more for their electricity, and they are going to be paying far more for their petrol. Basically, this is a miserable Budget, which, once again, the good, average, everyday New Zealander suffers from.

But, meanwhile, the fat cats—and we saw the Rt Hon Winston Peters here the other day with the mouse. The mouse might come out again this afternoon if this keeps going—it might come out again. The Rt Hon Winston Peters said the poor, average New Zealander is on the treadmill trying to make things better, but every time he goes forward, the treadmill keeps coming back at him. He cannot ever make any progress, because under this Government, the good, average New Zealander continues to have his everyday wage taken away from him. This latest fuel tax is just the latest poor, poor effort by this Government to try to balance the books. New Zealand First will not be supporting this.

Well, goodness me! One would have thought that Andrew Williams, the member who has just sat down, could probably have done a little bit better. It happens on a Saturday in urgency that people start to filibuster. Normally filibuster is amusing, or has some point, or does not pretend to be anything other than that, so I was not quite sure what the point of his speech was. Is he in favour of this transport bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, or not? Is he in favour of transport being developed? I suggest the general public would be far more impressed if we gave this type of legislation the significance in our speeches that it deserves. Transport is crucial to building our economic momentum. It is important, it is significant, and, indeed, it is vital. We should pass this bill.

Here we are in the dead of morning, and it may be that there are only about five New Zealanders outside the people in this Chamber listening to this debate, but, for the record, that is deliberate on the part of this Government. An interesting thing, colleagues, is that this debate was originally to be scheduled by the Government for the start of the urgency motion. At the last minute the order was changed because some genius in the Government whips’ office worked out the truth, which is that if the public hears this debate, they will work out that the Government has staked its political reputation on one of the most monumental lies in political history, which is getting back to surplus. How often have we heard that? “We are going to get back to surplus. We are going to get the Government’s books in the black.” Well, that is the colossal lie about this Budget: there is no surplus. The Government called it wafer-thin—$75 million in 2014 off a Budget of $84 billion. That is a margin of 1/1000th of the total spend.

And do you know what? By a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation, I am going to point to $3 billion worth of porkies, bulldust, and blather that get the Government to that line—$3 billion. Here is the list. We are here to talk about an excise bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. This excise bill puts petrol taxes up for hard-pressed New Zealand families by 9c a litre. That is 9c a litre that ordinary Kiwis can barely afford, and that rakes in—wait for it—$7 billion extra over 10 years. That is $7 billion out of Kiwis’ pockets to try to help the Government balance its bogus Budget.

But, you see, it does not get there without a whole lot of other things. Regarding ACC, officials told the Government to give back to hard-working New Zealanders in 2014-15 $700 million worth of overcharges. Did it do that? No. It is not doing that. It has put that off until the following year, and it is banking the $700 million of New Zealanders’ money so that it can get its wafer-thin, bogus Budget over the line. It does not get there without cutting the forecast expenditure track by $200 million in that year. It does not get there without an extraordinary bunch of tax fiddles.

I want to just draw the House’s attention to this worthy document. It is called the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, or the BEFU—a lovely name. On page 30 of it are the tax-flow assumptions. Guess what happens in the forecast 2014 year? A magic $400 million worth of tax credits occurs out of nowhere for that year only—$400 million is magicked as if by fairy dust. There is $1.1 billion worth of extra corporate tax that magics its way into the Budget for that year only, before falling to $200 million the year after. And $1.1 billion of extra PAYE and employee tax falls from the sky in that year only, before falling away again. It is an extraordinary conjuring trick. This Budget is not worth the paper it is printed on. There is no surplus. What there is is $3 billion worth of bogus numbers that are a conjuring trick that this Government should be ashamed of.

The Budget does not get there without, for example, promising business research and development tax cuts. Well, that is playing catch-up with Labour. We promised that in the last election. We costed ours. From memory, it was about $300 million. The Government has put it in the Budget, but there is nothing in the books. There is not one cent in the forward expenditure track for its research and development tax cut promise—not one cent. Mr Dunne a couple of weeks ago announced $1.5 billion for the research and development computer system. I do not know how you spend $1.5 billion on a computer system, but guess what? Not one dollar is in this Budget for a $1.5 billion computer system—not one dollar, colleagues.

This Budget is a sham. There is no surplus, because in about 7 minutes I have been able to reel off over $3 billion worth of porkies, misprints, favourable assumptions, and money spreading. Those backbenchers did not get told that in caucus, you can bet that. They are lambs to the slaughter in the National Government, and there is a very large shepherd right out in front.

Let us just suppose that the Budget did balance. Let us just suppose it really did get into the black. Would that be the be-all and end-all for New Zealanders? Would that make a million flowers bloom? Would that get 270,000 children out of poverty? Would that get our inflation rate down? Would that get our unemployment rate down? The answer is no, because guess what? Nobody has told Bill English it is not his job just to balance the Government’s books; it is to balance the country’s books. These people are balancing their books at the expense of your books, New Zealanders—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but their books. The Government is taking money out of the wallets of Kiwis, putting it in the Treasury coffers, and calling it a surplus when it is not—when it is not.

💬 Mike Sabin: “I have a dream.”

Oh, Brook Sabin’s been having dreams. I wonder what kind of dreams—Mike Sabin, sorry. He is almost as good-looking as his son, but not quite. All I am hoping is that it proves that there are enough synapses between his ears to actually fire up and create a dream, and that is very good.

But coming back to the point, if this Budget did balance and if the Government had a strategy to grow the economy, which it does not, then we would still be left with a third question: is it putting people first? Does this economy serve New Zealanders or do Government members see New Zealanders as pawns and peons to serve a magic economy? They have got it the wrong way round. They trumpeted this Budget as a social equity Budget. How ironic is that? They said: “Oh, this won’t be a typical, dry National Party Budget. We’re going to have food in schools. We’re going to have a landlord retail warrant of fitness.”, and do you know what? That was absolute window dressing, New Zealanders—absolute window dressing. This Budget is as dry as dust. It is a miserly, mingy Budget. It is a visionless bore. But the key point today is to remember that there is no surplus. This is a bogus document.

It has got $3 billion worth of sham, worth of lost money, worth of what we can only call porkies. This bill adds 9c over 3 years to ordinary New Zealanders’ petrol bills for every litre that they use. It is part of a series of measures that try to get these clowns to balance their books at the expense of New Zealanders’ books. The saddest part about it is that after all they are putting New Zealanders through, they still do not get there. They have to claw away $200 million worth of expenditure from next year. They have to magic up $4.1 billion worth of extra tax flows. They have to hold back $700 million worth of ACC levies that belong to New Zealanders. They have to penny pinch, lie, and scrounge, and they still do not get there. This is a sham. It is a bogus Budget. It is a Budget to be ashamed of, and when those backbenchers go and have a thumb through it—of course they never will, because they probably cannot read at that level of detail. But if they ever did—[Interruption] David Bennett is happy in his ignorance. You have got to give him that. Some people are ignorant and miserable; David Bennett is happy to be ignorant. He knows he is ignorant. It is like Chris Auchinvole, right? He is a man happy in his work. He knows the Budget is a waste of time. He knows—

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member was using the wrong surname. Were you meaning David Shearer, or—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order and will lead to disorder.

That one has hair—that one has hair.

💬 Hon Member: Sensitive flower.

He is a sensitive flower. The reason that we are here in the dead of morning on a Saturday sharing a few jokes amongst colleagues is that this is a debate that the Government does not want the public to hear. They do not want—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

He was going quite well until that ad hominem attack at the end, mate. David Cunliffe is a man whom I will remember by his rising-from-the-crypt speech—brilliantly delivered, theatrical, a joy to listen to, but all rubbish. It was as rubbish as many of the previous contributions were from the Opposition. Let me just encapsulate the fundamental thought there. This is an excellent Budget. This is an outstanding Budget. We have increased spending in health and education. Let me speak about health. We have increased spending in more heart health checks. The relevance of this is that if the arteries or the vessels of the heart block up, the heart stops functioning well, and what happens? The body dies. The person dies.

Think about the roads. If there are actually blockages in our roads, we cannot have the movement of goods and services around the country get to our export markets quickly, and the economy slows. This is an intervention. This increase in petrol excise tax and road-user charges will assist with building a better transport system. This is a vital part of the Government’s plan to build a more competitive and productive economy, an economy where growth would be stuttering, slowing, and finally stopped should the crypto-“renationalists” of the Labour Party get into bed with the money printers of the reds and the Greens in the Opposition. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a Government that seeps hypocrisy at every step of the move. It came in promising New Zealanders that it would reduce taxation. Well, it did. It did for the wealthy, and it did take off the regional petrol tax on Auckland. Now, in urgency, this National Government is increasing taxation on every single New Zealander. Why? To pay for the benefits of a few people living north of the Bombay Hills.

Auckland is not a bad place if you visit and stay for a short period of time. But can I give a few quotes from Ministers across the other side. “New Zealanders should not be forced to pay twice for road networks given they have already forked out for excise duty on road user charges.”—that was a statement from Gerry Brownlee when he was trying to justify the removal of a regional petrol tax on Auckland. Then we had from Mr Joyce a statement that said that “regional fuel taxes are expensive and inefficient … ”.

Well, I will tell you what you should do. I want Mr Auchinvole to go to Fox Glacier and tell the people at Fox Glacier that this tax is efficient and beneficial to them, and that it is not expensive. I have to say that everywhere outside Auckland will consider that this tax is inefficient, unfair, hypocritical, and, in fact, unproductive. If we are to listen to the Government’s rhetoric around taxation, that any increase in taxation causes a loss of productivity, what are we getting from this? Well, silence. That is exactly right. We are getting a pay-off and payment for a few infrastructural assets in Auckland, and we know Aucklanders need them.

But there was a consensus building group that came out with a list of recommendations, one of which was a regional petrol tax—no. “No, we cannot have a regional petrol tax.”, said Mr Joyce. So what we have to do is spread that tax across each and every single New Zealander. What about the people in rural New Zealand? These are the people who have to travel, these are the people who do not have any public transport system, and these are the people whom that member from Whangarei might remember. The people up there in Whangarei will not be too happy about paying a tax to pay for the infrastructural assets of Aucklanders—I say with all due respect to my colleagues—that should have been paid for by Aucklanders. The people in the regions, the rural New Zealanders, who produce the wealth in this country, are being forced to pay 9c for every litre of petrol over 3 years—9c. And for what? To pay for “holiday highways” and infrastructural assets.

Even a consensus group—this was a group of Aucklanders who came together to say: “How should we pay for our infrastructural assets and our roading?”—arrived at a number of options such as a regional fuel tax, higher rates, which are not terribly desirable, or charging for motorway use. The vast majority of New Zealanders living outside Auckland would say that that is a reasonable challenge, and one that should be put up. Well, the Government said: “No, no, no, we can’t have people up there paying for their own infrastructure. We will impose a petrol tax of 9c across each and every New Zealander”—the same 9c that was rejected by that Government when it came into office—“for every litre of fuel.”

I know what people in Fox Glacier, in Collingwood, in Fairlie, and in Invercargill think about this. Off the back of statements by Mr Brownlee and Mr Joyce about the inefficiency and the expense of this, they understand the hypocrisy of what is going on in this House today. This Government removed the tax when it came in, to satisfy its mates in Auckland, and it now imposes this tax across each and every New Zealander to try to justify, as my colleagues say, this paper-thin, so-called balance in the Crown accounts.

This is an outrage and I urge New Zealanders, the few who might be watching, to go and tell their people—all the people, the two-thirds of the population who live outside Auckland—that this National Government is increasing taxes. It is doing it on each and every New Zealander—the vast majority of whom have no alternative other than to pay it. This is unfair. It is inefficient and it is expensive, and that is to use the Minister’s—

The member’s time has expired.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Surprisingly, I rise to support this bill—the only bill the Green Party will be supporting under urgency—the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. The interesting thing about this bill is that it is quite possibly the only bill that actually is Budget-related, as part of this tranche of Budget urgency this Parliament is considering on Saturday morning.

I rise to support this bill, but I want to note the strong reservations the Green Party has, because although we agree we should have increased transport funding and we think increasing the petrol excise levy is a good signal that is going to help give the Government money to help spend on the right solutions, the problem is that what we are not going to see is the right solutions being picked by this Government. What we are going to see is this money being spent on more low-value motorways. In terms of cars, they are often described as a dog or a lemon. What we see under this Government is a whole bunch of motorway projects that are both dogs and lemons because they do not even make economic sense—not even to the Government’s own analysis. What we know is that the so-called roads of national significance did not go through any Treasury analysis. They were an election pledge—election bribe. Despite all the expert analysis, despite the independent consultant saying that some of these projects had a woeful, negative benefit-cost ratio, the Government is still ploughing ahead, and you can see that head-in-the-sand approach in the regulatory impact statement that says that the objectives of keeping the roads of national significance should be kept.

What we are seeing with this legislation is fuel excise taxes going up by 3c over the next 3 years—a 9c increase over 3 years—to carry the declining National Land Transport Fund. I feel sorry for the Minister of Transport, Gerry Brownlee, because what has happened is that the original minister, Steven Joyce, had a $20 billion National Land Transport Fund, which he allocated through the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding. He had the pleasure of going around the country talking about launching motorways, starting the ball rolling, and what he has left Gerry Brownlee with is a dog and a lemon, because what he has left him with is not enough money to finish the job. The cupboard is bare because of the $12 billion this Government is wasting on uneconomic motorways, which do not even have a strong business case.

The Green Party supports spending on infrastructure investment. The Green Party even supports borrowing for infrastructure investment when there is a good business case. But these seven so-called roads of national significance do not even have a strong business case. What we see is the National Land Transport Fund down over $1.6 billion over the next 5 years, so now Gerry Brownlee has to go and put nearly $1 billion in extra borrowing on the credit card for these motorways of National Party significance. The problem is, of course, that over the last 5 years, what we have seen is petrol prices up, we have seen road volumes down, and we have seen public transport patronage growing spectacularly, yet the Government still does not give Kiwis options to get around. All it is offering is motorways to get out of Wellington faster and motorways to get north of Auckland faster. There is not that critical investment in our cities where our prosperity and our economic development options are going to be. There is no money in the Budget, despite some speculation on The Standard blog that the Government would launch a funding announcement for the central business district rail loop in Auckland. There is no funding for light rail for Wellington. There is no funding for our cities. It is just for the roads of National Party significance, roads of trucking significance, because trucking is the real beneficiary of these motorways—roads of trucking significance!

What we see is bad policy set by the Government and a Minister who has got no money left in the cupboard because Steven Joyce has spent it all. So Gerry Brownlee now has to run off to Parliament to raise the taxes, and put it on the credit card, but the problem is we are still going to be stuck with these seven motorways. There is a better way, and that is what the Green Party is advocating for, which is investing in smart transport and a balanced approach. If we actually had a balanced approach to the transport budget, there would still be money for the roads. There would still be money for road safety upgrades, which we know are being delayed as a result of all the money being poured into these seven roads of National Party significance. We could be spending money on roads. We could be spending money on road safety. We could be spending more money on road policing. All these budget lines have been raided by both Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee to pour into these political roads.

I think New Zealanders want a smarter option. That is what all the polls are indicating. They want to a central business district rail link for Auckland. They want to have funding powers and regional autonomy to make some of these decisions. They want better buses, better trains, better walking and cycling, and that is what the Green Party is going to keep advocating for. Kia ora.

Look, I think the Opposition must still be asleep, going by the level of rhetoric and ideology we are hearing. Smart transport, I think, is sort of walking barefoot uphill both ways. This Government is actually committed to doing what Kiwis want. We know that the spending across a whole range of areas—in road, in public transport, in trains—is significant and it costs money. So this bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, is a prudent attempt by the Government, through this piece of legislation, to increase the amount of money that we have to invest in roads and across public transport.

We have heard all this talk around Auckland—$1.6 billion on the train system, $1 billion a year around subsidies for public transport in Auckland, $750 million for KiwiRail over 3 years. This—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: How much?

$750 million over 3 years. This is a Government that is committed to transport, and it is a Government committed to transport that Kiwis want. In this way we are prepared to see a small increase over the next 3 years through the use of motor spirits, in order to continue ring-fenced funding, if you like, and, basically, to continue what we need to do in the roading sphere. I commend this bill to the House.