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

I move, That the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Increases in petrol excise, combined with the increases in road-user charges, will provide the revenue this country needs to deliver long-overdue improvements to the land transport network. The increases will lift the rate of excise duty on petrol to about 59.5c per litre in 2015. Compared with other developed countries, this rate is low. In fact, even following these increases, New Zealand will have the fifth-lowest rate of petrol tax in the OECD. New Zealand also has one of the few hypothecated schemes in the OECD. In other words, all the money that is taken off the road users is spent on the roads. Maintaining this system ensures that road users throughout the country continue to be the ones who are funding investment and maintenance in the roading network. These increases will allow significant investment in the country’s many important transport projects. I commend this bill to the House.

I seek the leave of the House to adjourn at the conclusion of this third reading of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, and forgo the dinner break.

Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection.

It has been a long day of debate, but here we are in the third reading of the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. We are very close to the point at which the National Government, supported by the Greens and the Mana Party, will be increasing taxes on hard-working low and middle income New Zealanders. That is an outrage, because it is an absolute contradiction to what the National Party said it was going to do before it came into Government. John Key went up and down New Zealand. He went to every single region. He went to every single city. He stared down the barrel of every single camera he could get in front of, and he told New Zealanders that he was going to bring down taxes, that he was going to bring down costs for everyday, hard-working New Zealanders, but that is not what happened at all.

What happened is that the National Party came into Government and immediately cut taxes for its mates. It immediately cut taxes for its mates. Then it realised that, no, it probably could not do that, so then it immediately reversed the tax cuts for its mates. But then the next year the Government had another go at it, and it cut taxes. It cut the top tax rate—the tax rate that its mates pay, that the wealthy pay.

What the Government has done subsequent to that is that it has found every single possible way of putting up taxes on low and middle income New Zealanders. It started with GST. Remember, before the election—again, does everybody remember before the election—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

No ifs, no buts, no maybes—John Key’s absolute cast-iron guaranteed promise to New Zealand was that National would not be raising GST. He said: “National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes.” He said that the fastest way to eliminate deficits was to get New Zealand back into surplus and get New Zealand growing again.

That surplus is, of course, what this is all about. So what has John Key had to do to get the Government’s books back into surplus? Well, it certainly has not been anything to do with growing the economy. If the economy was growing, if this Government was doing its job, if it was actually working for New Zealanders—if it was not too busy working for Skycity, if it was not too busy working for Warner Bros, if it was not too busy working for anybody else except the New Zealand taxpayer—then this country would be growing again. The Government would not have to resort to putting up GST, increasing the cost of early childhood education, increasing ACC, and increasing fuel excise taxes, just so that it can squeak in that $75 billion Budget surplus that it is predicting. That is what this is about.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: $75 billion?

It is $75 million.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Only $75 million. What?

It is $75 million. Is that 0.1 percent?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No.

No, no. It is less than that. It is such a tiny, insignificant proportion of the Government’s total revenue that if the Government sneezes out of turn, it could lose that surplus in a moment. It takes just one cock-up from Simon Bridges and it is all over. That is all it would take. That is the real reason why this National Government has put up taxes again for hard-working New Zealanders.

And, of course, we know that the Government is all about the surplus because it has been overcharging Kiwis for ACC for so long that it has finally accepted that it is time to reduce the ACC charges. But did the Government do it a year ago, when its officials told it that it was time to do it? No. Will the Government do it this year? No. When will the Government do it? The Government will do it after it gets to that surplus. It has not even factored it in. It has sort of promised it, hinted at it. Well, maybe that will be another broken promise, if the Government cannot get its books back into shape. If we are not quite at the surplus, maybe those ACC cuts just will not happen, even though New Zealanders are being overcharged for ACC, just like they are now being overcharged for their fuel excise taxes.

If, for a moment, we actually believe the Minister of Transport and say that this is about building transport infrastructure, we know, from his first reading speech and his second reading speech, that this is all about the roads of political significance. He tried to U-turn a bit on that in the Committee stage. He tried to say it was about the whole transport network. But the Minister’s own words in his first reading and second reading speeches were that this was all about funding the roading network, and that, of course, is what the hollow men want. They want all that money that is raised by fuel excise taxes to go into the roads of political significance.

If this has got anything to do with transport infrastructure, that is what it is about. The National Party does not believe in an integrated transport system—

💬 Hon Annette King: Or the provinces.

—or the provinces, as my colleague Annette King says. Our national transport infrastructure involves local roads, it involves railway lines like the Napier to Gisborne railway line, it involves roads like State Highway 3 in Taranaki—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Cycleways.

—it involves cycleways, it involves active transport like walking and cycling in urban areas, it involves public transport like urban rail and buses, and it involves motorways. Motorways are important. Coastal shipping is highly important. Coastal shipping will never be backed by the National Party, because it cannot stick coastal shipping in front of the voters and say: “Look what we did.” Most of the voters do not reside a couple of miles off the coast, so they cannot see that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Protesters.

Well, the protesters cannot go out there either, Mr Mallard, because National got rid of the protesters too.

What National has done is put all of it into the highways. Look, sometimes highways are the answer. Sometimes you do the analysis of what the need is and what the solution is, and sometimes highways are the answer. It is important to complete the roading networks in Auckland that both the Labour Party and the National Party have supported in the past, but it cannot all be about highways. It is absolutely disingenuous for the Minister to stand up and say that he supports a diverse transport network—a diverse range of infrastructure for the transport network. He has said himself that this is all about the “Holiday Highway”. That is what National’s flagship transport infrastructure programme is all about. That is all it ever wants to talk about.

National members said no when Len Brown came to them with a package for Auckland that included the central city rail link. I wish National members would get it through their heads that it is not a loop; it is a link. It is about opening up the entire rail network in Auckland and making it more effective and more efficient. But the National members say no because they hate rail. They will never support rail, because rail might get in the way of the roads of political significance. That is what National’s modus operandi is when it comes to transport infrastructure.

Voters can rely on the Labour Party to take a sensible, sustainable approach to building an integrated transport network. The resources that we have in the transport budget are limited. We have to be wise about how we use them. We cannot hurl everything at projects that are purely for political gain. We have to do what is right for growth. We have to do what is right to make sure that our communities are connected. We have to do what is right to make sure that our transport infrastructure is environmentally sustainable and that we work towards reducing emissions, not only to ensure that we have less of an impact on our environment but also to improve public health, because that is important. It is a very important component of making sure that New Zealanders are healthy and have a good standard of life, that public health considerations are taken into account when building transport infrastructure.

But the Government has got rid of all of those things. We used to have legislation that said that transport infrastructure had to be affordable, that it had to be effective, that it had to be efficient, that it had to take into account public health, and that it had to take into account the environment, but the Government got rid of all of that. It got rid of the legislation that gets in the way of its roads of political significance. That is what the Government has done.

That was the first aspect, and this bill just backs that up. It got rid of the roadblocks that might somehow get in the way of its road-building programme, and now it is raising taxes on middle and low income New Zealanders to pay for a funding gap that was created by Steven Joyce. He deliberately told the New Zealand Transport Agency to overspend on roads. That is where the funding gap came from. I find it outrageous that this National Government, which tells New Zealand that it is all about lowering taxes, takes a tax and spend approach and a profligate approach to roading, and that it is doing that off the backs of hard-working New Zealanders.

I move that the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill progress. It is good for the Waikato Expressway. Thank you.

💬 Grant Robertson: Well, Mr Speaker, I presume—

You are seeking the call, are you not?

💬 Grant Robertson: —I am now speaking to the amended motion that Mr Bennett has put up.

No, no. The man—[Interruption] Order! Does the member want the call or not?

💬 Grant Robertson: Yes, Mr Speaker.

The member has the call.

It was a very confusing contribution there from a confused member, David Bennett. That is actually the most substantive contribution made by a National backbencher in this debate. I want to start by looking at a process issue that we have. This has been a long session of urgency that has culminated in this particular bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. Most of the legislation that we debated over the last few days before we got to this bill actually did not have much to do with the Budget, at all. The Government was trying to correct mistakes that it had made, and it chucked them into an urgency motion like this. Government members who would rather be somewhere else on a Saturday evening than here might want to reflect on the way in which they are going about making law. If they are going to shove laws through in haste, there will be mistakes. We had the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill before this one, which amends a bill that has not even come into force yet. Then we have the other bill that we passed, which was around carers, which is causing a great deal of consternation in the community. It is a bill that should have gone to a select committee. So here we are at the end of the urgency motion with this bill. I do think Government members need to reflect upon the kind of legislation and the kind of lawmaking that they are going into.

This bill is being opposed by Labour because we believe that it is a core element of the Government’s Budget, which we strongly oppose. I do want to note at this stage our surprise that there are parties that will be voting against the Budget overall but have chosen to vote in favour of this bill. I respect the Green Party’s and Mana party’s principled position around supporting petrol tax increases on the grounds that that should be part of moving towards a different kind of mix of transport solutions in New Zealand. The problem for parties such as the Greens and Mana, which are voting for this, is that that is not what is happening under this bill. If it was, maybe there could be a conversation to be had about whether it is a good idea to support a petrol tax increase as part of moving towards a more sustainable transport programme with different modes of transport, like rail and coastal shipping, being supported. But that is not what is happening in this bill.

This bill is simply, if the Government is to be believed, about funding the National Land Transport Fund, and in particular the roads of national significance. So it is disappointing, I have to say, from a Labour point of view that others who will oppose the Budget as a whole do not realise that this is a clear Budget measure that actually does not contribute to sustainable transport, but in fact simply contributes to the roads of national significance.

It has been quite clear, despite National’s lack of contribution to this debate over the last day or so, that this bill is actually about creating the fiction of a surplus in the Government accounts. That is quite simple. It is quite clear that a petrol tax increase such as this forms part of that strategy. Gerry Brownlee and others have told us too today that that is not true, that we are wrong, but the reality is that if you look at the Budget documents, you will see that the National Government has manufactured that surplus off the back of this petrol tax increase, off the back of ACC levies that are jacked up, and then magically brought down off the back of $1.1 billion worth of corporate tax revenue that just materialises in the Government’s books in the year that it happened to want to get into surplus. We do not believe that that is right. If the Government really thinks it can get a surplus, it needs to be able to justify that on a growing economy, on an economy that is generating jobs, on an economy that is actually going to get people paying more income tax, and therefore giving the Government more revenue. Instead, the Government is relying on a wafer-thin surplus of $75 million based upon overcharging New Zealanders, overtaxing New Zealanders, and not giving New Zealanders a fair go.

As part of this Budget, I do urge those parties that want to oppose the Budget to have a think about where this fits in the overall scope of National’s tax policy. National’s tax policy consistently, since National came in in 2008, has gone against the promises that were made to New Zealanders. John Key made specific promises about the tax burden on middle-class New Zealanders. The reality is that the only tax burden that has been relieved since National came into office is for the top 10 percent of earners. Once again, we see—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Got $1 million.

The calculation that Trevor Mallard and others have made is that John Key managed to get $1 million a year out of this when we looked at his total income. Do you know what the average wage earner got out of that? Twelve bucks a week—$12 a week. That is what the average wage earner in New Zealand got out of the tax cuts that National did in 2010. But beyond those tax cuts, all we have seen are tax increases and increases in charges on ordinary working New Zealanders. The GST increase: no ifs, no buts, no maybes. GST was not going up under National, and then it did.

Then the Government followed that up with ratcheting up ACC charges. We have seen early childhood education fees go up by up to 20 percent for many families. We have seen additional cost of living pressures piling on to New Zealanders, and prescription charges going up. That may seem like a small increase to members on the opposite benches. We heard during the Committee stage debate on this bill that John Hayes said that an average increase of $45 a year as a result of this petrol tax was not much, and did not mean much—was not much. Well, that simply is out of touch. That is out of touch because New Zealanders who are struggling to make ends meet will be sitting there tonight saying: “So this Government says my bill to fill up my car will go up by 3c a litre this year, next year, and the year after.” And that is what this Government is doing, plus the GST. Some people will be lucky enough to claim that back if they can get that out as being a commercial use. But most ordinary New Zealanders will be facing that bill. So if we put all of those things together, there is not a brighter future coming out of this Government; there is a bleaker future for most New Zealanders because they are facing these increased costs from this Government.

I want to return to another matter relating to this as a budgetary measure, and that is to raise the concerns again that have been raised with me by people from Christchurch and the Canterbury region about comments made in recent days by both the Prime Minister and Gerry Brownlee about what is going on in this Budget in relation to Christchurch. It was the Prime Minister who said on television on Campbell Live that New Zealanders across the country will need to go without for Christchurch. Playing that kind of blame game with Christchurch is unacceptable. It is not on for the people of Christchurch—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not what he said.

It is exactly what he said, Mr Brownlee.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not what he said.

It is exactly what he said, Mr Brownlee. He went on television and said that. I am more than happy to say this. This is it. It is right here. I have got the article right here. He said that New Zealanders right across the country have to go without so that money can go into Christchurch as a priority. It is right there in black and white, Mr Brownlee. He is very quiet now. Right there. John Key said that in black and white on Campbell Live. Actually, Mr Brownlee, because he has interjected on me, might care to learn that we have Christchurch city councillors saying that they were staggered by that. Another person who lost their home said that she was incensed by Mr Key’s comments—she was incensed by them. Perhaps this was another occasion where he should pick his words more carefully.

💬 Louise Upston: This is relevant how?

Louise Upston says: “Is this relevant now?”. Well, the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury say that this is very, very relevant now, Louise Upston—this is very relevant now.

This bill is being opposed by the Labour Opposition. It is part of a Budget that has entirely failed to address what New Zealanders would expect a Budget to address: to actually help grow a strong economy, to actually support exporters and manufacturers, to back people who create jobs, and to actually help create jobs. It has failed to create a fairer society. Promises were made about food in schools, and not kept. Band-aid solutions to poverty were put up. This Budget has completely failed to address the economic and social issues that are facing New Zealanders today. It has been put forward by a Government distracted by its own scandals, focused on vested interests, focused on deals with Skycity and Warner Bros, and not focused on giving a fair deal for New Zealanders. We end this debate with the National Government putting up petrol taxes on hard-working New Zealanders, which is the very thing it said it would not do. It is the very broken promise that it has come to this House time and again and broken—broken once, broken twice, broken three times, and now in its fifth Budget breaking it again. This Government could have come to this House today with a package around increasing petrol taxes that would have gone towards sustainable transport solutions. It has not done that. Parties that are supporting this bill need to think very carefully about where this fits inside the priorities of this Government, which are not for—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Come on, windbag, wind up.

Pardon? Oh, Mr Brownlee’s bored. Mr Brownlee is saying—well, I am sorry to Mr Brownlee, but I have taken calls in this debate because this bill is flawed. This bill is flawed, and it should not pass.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. After Mr Bennett spoke, he appeared to move an amendment. He certainly moved something—

💬 David Bennett: I never did that.

It was not absolutely clear. It is the normal practice for the Speaker to—

Order! The member will resume his seat—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat if he expects to stay for the rest of the debate.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to be the last Green Party speaker on this Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. The Green Party is supporting the bill. Obviously, we have got a different transport vision from the Government’s. We have got concerns about how the fuel excise levy is going to be spent. We think it is logically inconsistent. The declining road transport revenue is going to be fixed by increasing the fuel excise levy and increased borrowing to spend on the roads. Obviously, fewer people are going to be driving. Over numerous calls we have critiqued the Government’s 1960s transport vision. We have proposed our positive solution. But we are not going to belabour the point tonight. Kia ora.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. David Bennett earlier on appeared to move a motion, and it was not entirely—

Order! I have ruled on that, and if the member—[Interruption] Order! Would the member resume his seat.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member intends to relitigate the same issue, I will take it very seriously.

I am asking the Speaker a question. Could you please inform the House what your ruling was?

Order! The member clearly stumbled on his words. I have accepted that, and we moved on quite some time ago.

I support this bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, and commend it to the House.

Denis O’Rourke. [Interruption] Order! I have called Denis O’Rourke. [Interruption] Order! Order! It is the members’ own time they are wasting.

People are getting sick and tired of having petrol tax increases of the size and frequency that this Government has imposed and will impose further by this Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. The effect is that since National took office, the petrol tax will have gone from 42c per litre to 59c per litre, an increase of over 40 percent. That is a massive increase for the people of this country to bear. The magnitude of the proposed increases, to add 9c per litre over 3 years, would need, I believe, much better justification than the Government has so far given, and I am dismayed that so few of the members opposite me have chosen to rise and speak to give that justification. I listened to what the Minister of Transport said, and also did not find anything like adequate justification for the sheer magnitude of the increases that are being proposed. That is the first issue: large fuel tax increases with no real justification, although I suppose we know what the real reason is, and that is to make the Government’s books look good for election purposes next year.

Another issue—why by this time New Zealand has not developed other funding sources—is something that we should really think about much more. Just recently I was interested to read the Auckland transport funding plan. It sets out two options. Both have baskets of different funding sources. One requires more funding from rates, and the other suggests that road pricing systems be introduced. Both, of course, require regional fuel taxes. Stupidly, I think, this Government is now abolishing the legislation allowing regional fuel taxes to be established. I think that is a very serious mistake.

💬 Hon Member: Different bill.

It is a different bill, but that legislation is also going through the House at this time. So the Government’s moves to impose these much larger fuel tax increases are not appropriate, when our largest city is currently looking at the best funding sources for land transport purposes right through to the year 2030 and beyond. The point here is that that city is not just looking at funding for transport initiatives but also wishes to begin to introduce demand management measures, especially to suppress demand at peak times, and we all know what Auckland can get like at peak times.

In Christchurch, of course, where I come from, there were no motorways allowed by successive councils through the built-up area of the central city. That is a debate we had a decade or so ago. The only motorways that we want to see in that city are those that give access to the city from the rest of the country, so that is the motorway to the south, which has just been expanded, and that to the north. I myself was involved, as a member of the city council there, in trying to move the city towards a more sustainable transport system by improving public transport, establishing a bus exchange, encouraging cycling, and all those things. It is sad that this Government does not seem to understand the need for us to move more strongly in that area.

But another issue is that any increased funding should be applied towards a more sustainable transport system, and this country needs substantial measures aimed at just that. It is short-sighted to simply increase fuel taxes at the proposed rate in order to mindlessly build more motorways, only some of which are actually required. The real issue is the need for road pricing and other measures aimed, firstly, at a more sustainable land transport system and, secondly, at a system that incentivises other modes, especially at peak time. I do not see any proposal that the Government has put before us at any time during this term of Parliament that would give me any confidence that that will be done. We should really learn the lessons of other countries where the headlong race to build more road capacity has resulted only in more demand, especially at peak times. The effect is a vicious circle, which costs vast sums in capital and increased maintenance costs as well, not to mention the costs of many externalities.

I also would have to agree with another speaker and express my dismay that the Greens are voting for this bill—voting for huge fuel tax increases that will burden the ordinary people of this country, without any assurance that it will move us towards a more sustainable transport system. I might have it wrong, but I thought the Greens were in favour of a more sustainable transport system. I have not heard them say anything so far to give me any understanding of why they would support this particular increase in fuel taxes, when it will not do anything to move us towards a more sustainable transport system.

New Zealand First is focused on a more sustainable transport system. We want more from the system than just roads. We accept that there are road improvements that are needed, but we want much more than that. We want a fair, well-thought-out funding system, and we want a modern rail system integrated with good road, shipping, and other transport systems. We want to develop these with Kiwi expertise rather than buying it from overseas. We want to see the electrification of the New Zealand rail system using New Zealand workers, providing jobs in this country. We do not want to see Hillside railway workshops close. They would be able to provide us with rolling stock, providing more jobs for people in this country. We want more economic and environmentally sustainable transport systems.

We will vote against this bill, fundamentally because it is just a money-grab and is not part of a genuine move towards the modern transport system that this country needs. It is really sad to hear the members opposite whose only contribution has been caterwauling from the backbenches, and none of whom have bothered to rise and take a genuine part in this debate. That, I think, not just is very sad but actually means that the National Party simply does not care about the welfare of the people in this country who will have to pay those fuel taxes without getting in return any genuine move towards a sustainable transport system for New Zealand. That is pretty pathetic. New Zealand First will certainly vote against the bill, and we will be very saddened if it proceeds any further.

We should pass this bill, the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. Thank you.

I think the thing that I can say for that last speech from Chris Auchinvole is that it was more consistent and coherent than David Bennett’s speech before, and did not attempt to move an amendment in the way that Mr Bennett’s did. It is not exactly high praise, but the fact that the member did better than David Bennett is noted by all other members in the House.

Being a Wellington member is sometimes a disadvantage. When international visitors are coming into town, we are the ones, especially Ministers, who are called to go to the airport and do various things. But being a Wellington member and having a very good chance of getting home to Wainuiōmata after the dinner break, in time to see Piri Weepu playing for the Blues—a 7.35 start—is something that is good. At least I will be doing it with the excise rates and the duty on motor spirits being at the level they are now.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It’s all about Trevor.

There goes Tau Henare again. He appears to be able to speak or stand, but not both at the same time. He appears to be able to speak and stand, but he cannot take up his role as a member of Parliament and get on his hind legs and make a speech. He makes a lot of racket.

I do want to get back to the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, and I want to make a comment to the Greens. I want to make a comment to the Greens and say to them that if there had been a decent transport package coming out of this, then the Labour Party would have contemplated supporting it. But if there was a decent transport package coming out of this, the National Party would not have got its surplus. That is the point. If there had been spending measures on public transport or on cycleways or on railways or on coastal shipping coming from this bill, then the National Government would have failed to achieve the surplus that it has been trumpeting. So the Greens, in supporting this—[Interruption]—are part of a rort. I agree with the National member opposite. They are part of a rort whereby they are pretending that there is a surplus, when, in fact, we know there is not a surplus at all.

Members opposite appear to be under instructions from people. They are under instructions from some of their funders, in order to put this—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member cannot—

💬 Hon Annette King: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I am on my feet. Thank you. The member cannot allude to members being under instructions to do something, suggesting that they are receiving money for that. If the member would just tidy up his speech, I would be grateful for it.

I was not suggesting that they are receiving money; they are puppets on strings without the money.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw to the attention of Mr Mallard that he raised a point of order some years ago when I referred to Geppetto being behind the Labour Party—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a helpful point of order.

I think the point of order at the time, going back, referred to the increasing size of the nose of the Prime Minister, if the member was getting that right. That is something that is now often reflected in the angle of the collar of the Minister of Finance. Every time the Minister of Finance tells a whopper, his collar pops out from underneath his jacket. It is something that we have been noticing from this side of the House over a period of time, and to say that this money is for roading is a whopper. It is a whopper. It is not going to be spent on roading. If it was going to be spent on roading, that would be budgeted for in the estimates. It is not budgeted for in the estimates. If it was budgeted for in the estimates, what would be happening is that the surplus, which the Prime Minister claims is a real one, would disappear. So what is happening? The Government is collecting money that it knows it cannot spend if there is to be a surplus.

I think the third reading is a time when we reflect back on the debate, and we reflect back on the contributions, or lack of contributions on the part of the members of the National Party. There are a number of questions—a number of questions—that were asked but not answered. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is a very robust debater, but he should not have to put up with that level of interjection.

Thank you for your protection—not that I am commenting on your ruling, of course. I would not comment on your ruling.

I want to refer in particular to the unanswered question relating to the very last clause, clause 7(2), which revokes new regulation 6A. Regulation 6A comes in. It is revoked in 2015 as part of the bill. The question I ask is whether—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Mike, do you want fries with that?

Mike Sabin, I am told, has got a very prized police officers’ card, which gets him discounts at KFC. Apparently—

💬 Hon Annette King: What?

I think it is an outrage that any police officer, but especially a retired police officer, should attempt to get—

💬 Mike Sabin: Say it outside of the House, Trevor.

I do not believe what Tau Henare says about the member. I do not believe what Tau Henare says about the member, but if what Tau Henare says is true, it would be an absolute outrage for any member of Parliament to impersonate a police officer in order to get a discount in a KFC. We see the effects of it on the member, but I believe the member. I think he probably does pay full price, but—

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for the dinner break. The House is suspended until I resume the Chair at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Prior to the dinner break the Hon Trevor Mallard was speaking, and he has 2 minutes remaining if he desires to use it.

💬 Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Only 2 minutes? That is outrageous, after I was so badly interrupted by those points of order.

We are speaking to the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that taxes poor people in order to support rich people. It is a bill that involves a wealth transfer from provincial New Zealand to Auckland. It is something that the Labour Party is very concerned about. We are very surprised at the Green Party’s decision to vote for it. As we have said previously, if there had been a decent transport package that involved funding going to public transport, with this level of excise increase, we would have supported it. But what the Green Party has ended up doing is voting for the Government on a Budget measure, and I am very, very surprised.

I commend the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill to the House.

Welcome back from the dinner break, everybody. The cutaways on Parliament TV may show faces on the other side of the House being a little bit forlorn and a bit angry about being here, but I think they secretly want to be here. Secretly they are quite thankful that they are here at Parliament, because they are the ones who have not gone back to their communities yet. Instead, they are going to stick their motorists with a 9c increase on their petrol excise. They are the ones who would basically prefer—[Interruption] It is 10.5c, sorry, because of the GST. I stand corrected. It is not a 9c increase at all; it is 10.5c. These are the members who are quite happy that they are here and not having to front up to the people in their communities to say that when they fill up their petrol tanks as of 1 July this year, it will be another 3c per litre, and on 1 July next year it will be another 3c, and another 3c in the year beyond that. These members might think that they are the unlucky ones, but these are very happy MPs because they are not going back to their home electorates and having to front up to their constituents. They may look unhappy about being here—they are the last ones left, the ones who may have missed their flights for the night—but they are actually very happy to be here. They are happy to be here because they are not having to front up to their constituents to tell them that this is a Budget measure of broken promises.

I just want to remind the party over there of what its leader, John Key, said in 2008. He said that National was not going to be raising GST—wrong. It did. He said that National wanted to cut taxes, not raise taxes—wrong. This is a measure that will increase taxes by 3c per litre each year over the next 3 years for every Kiwi who is using their car or their truck. What have we heard about this? We have heard one member, the MP from Wairarapa, John Hayes, say that the $45 more that taxpayers will have to pay to fill up their cars is not much money—it is not much money. Well, it may not be much money to Mr Hayes, but it certainly is a lot of money to his constituents. A lot of those people will be filling up their tanks and paying $45 more a year, on top of the $40 more in prescription charges that this Government has lumped on them, and also the GST that this Government has lumped on them. This has been a Budget measure of broken promises.

I did not really get a chance to speak in the title and commencement clauses debate on this Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, and I just want to offer something up. I want to offer up an alternative title, and that is the “Customs and Excise (Budget Advice Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill”. When people out in our communities are struggling to pay something, this is a Government that makes them go out and get budget advice. They have to go and get budget advice before the Government will help them. I would suggest that this Government—which has set out on a blind mission to try to build these roads of national significance, and has realised that it cannot afford it—get some budget advice, then the people of New Zealand would not have to pay an extra 3c a litre for their petrol each year over the next 3 years.

Of all the bills that we have seen in relation to the Budget under this urgency motion, we have actually had a decent regulatory impact statement for this bill. In it, very helpfully, it points out why the Government has had to do this. I will quote from this document: “Forecasts of revenue and expenditure for the National Land Transport Fund in November 2012 indicated a total revenue shortfall of around $1.6 billion over the next five years. The shortfall is due to the timing of the Roads of National Significance programme, which is identified as a key priority in the [Government policy statement] 2012.” In English, for those people who are watching—and I am sure they are thrilled to be watching Parliament TV at this time of the night—that means that the Government promised something, could not afford it, and is now asking the people of New Zealand to stump up the cash to make sure it can do it.

I want to give you one example of a road of national significance that the Government is pushing in my area, and that is the Kapiti Expressway. Let us look at the value for money of that expressway. Last year there was a leaked report, and there have been quite a few leaks—quite a few leaks—out of this Government. That report said that the engineering consultants thought that the half-billion-dollar motorway project had a benefit-cost ratio of 0.2—0.2. So for every dollar the Government spent, the economic benefit of that is 20c. I am sure there are a few people over there who can count beans, but in my very simple maths that is not a very good investment. In fact, that would be an awful investment. To make it even worse, this Government is spending $515 million on this expressway—

💬 Andrew Little: How much?

—$515 million—and the return on that investment that it will generate over the next 30 years is $118 million. We could have saved the Government a considerable amount of money if it had just stuck to the plan that the people of Kāpiti and the Labour Government had implemented at the end of its term.

Interestingly enough, so did Mr Nathan Guy, the MP for Ōtaki. Late in 2009 he was all go for the Western Link Road, which was the original plan for the Kāpiti coast. The locals were on board, the mayor was on board, Nathan Guy was on board—we were loving it. The Kāpiti coast was looking forward to it, until Steven Joyce turned up—until Steven Joyce turned up. I would like to read a press release from the Hon Mr Nathan Guy, because he was delighted to see the Western Link Road get started. He said: “This is fantastic news for Kapiti because it will connect up our communities. This new road and bridge will significantly ease traffic congestion on the existing State Highway”. [Interruption] Here he is—here he is. I have got your press release here, Nathan. I am just reading it out for the benefit of you: “This is a fantastic”—just so I can be more precise, it is actually dated 20 February 2009—“news for Kapiti because it will connect up our communities. This new road and bridge will significantly ease traffic congestion on the existing State Highway where we have about 24,000 vehicles movements a day.” Then it goes on to say: “The Transport Minister Mr Steve Joyce will be briefed on this project when he visits the Otaki electorate next month to understand how important it is.”

Well, when Steven Joyce arrived, Nathan Guy got rolled. He got rolled, and in comes the Kapiti Expressway. Instead of a local link road that all the residents of Kāpiti want, Nathan Guy got rolled, and what the Kāpiti coast gets is a four-lane motorway through the beautiful and picturesque Kāpiti coast. I will look to table that press release if Mr Guy has forgotten what his position was in February 2009. [Interruption] If they do not like it, the truth hurts. They are quite happy about that at 7.10 on a Saturday night.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the National members please give Mr Faafoi a reasonable chance. [Interruption] Order!

This was going to be a split call, but I think I will take the whole 10 minutes.

Where was I before I was so rudely interrupted? This Budget measure is all about creating the illusion that this Government has a surplus. It is only a wafer-thin surplus. It is only a wafer-thin surplus of $75 million in 2 years’ time. So when this Government says it is balancing the books, it is balancing the books by a thousand cuts—nipping and tucking. It is not enough to have a bit of a nip and tuck when people go to the petrol station and fill up with petrol; they are having a nip and tuck at the Ministry for the Environment and they are having a nip and tuck at the police.

Actually, I will spend a couple of minutes on the police, because what is this Government doing to the police? It is running them into the ground. There have been huge budget cuts—especially around traffic cops; huge budget cuts—to run our police force into the ground, and this is a Government that said it backs our police on law and order. It absolutely is doing the opposite. In the last 8 months, the budget pressure that the Government has put our police force under has seen 219 front-line police officers leave their jobs. If anyone wants to see the latest Ten One, have a look at it: 56 front-line police officers resigned in the last month—56. That figure is only going to get worse.

This is an awful Budget measure. It is there to try to create the illusion that the Government has got a surplus—a wafer-thin surplus at that. It is an awful Budget measure of breaking promises around lifting GST and saying that it will lower taxes. Instead, it increased taxes. With that, I wish the members opposite a very lovely evening in Wellington.

We have had 2 days of debate and not one constructive argument from the Opposition. This has been a good couple of days for the Government. In the immortal words of Frodo Baggins, here we are at the end of all things. I look forward to returning to Auckland tonight—tonight—with my colleagues. Here we are at the end of all things. I commend the Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill to the House.