Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's nice to be talking on this second reading of the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. I will talk on the bill but I'd like to just rebut some of the comments said before.I think no one in National is saying that we shouldn't be building cycleways or enhancing our bus services or in fact expanding our ferry services which we're not seeing in Auckland as an example. I think to be characterised by the Government that we're fixated on roads—and when I say we National—is actually an incorrect statement and actually doesn't reflect reality.During our time in office we certainly did spend a lot of money on roads. Some of it was towards trying to realise the 50-year dream that we'd have a four-lane motorway that goes from Cambridge to Wellsford. I guarantee when the final bit gets completed—which will happen in a couple of years' time—every single Minister in that Government will be there and for anything to do with transport I imagine that Mr Shane Jones particularly will be there to be seen to be cutting the ribbon to be able to be part of this wonderful vision that no doubt they would like to claim at that point.The other point I would just like to make with relation to the last speaker Eugenie Sage's comments is actually some of these roads that we were trying to do some of these motorways that you say we shouldn't be worrying about and decrying actually are about safety. The most relevant example of course is the Katikati to Tauranga road and the campaign Fix the BLOODY Road" is all about safety. For Government Ministers—and Ministers as the previous speaker is one—to be able to be sitting there saying this is all about fixation and not worrying about safety aspects I think is a very poor characterisation.But now turning to the bill. It's interesting. I think it's just worthwhile reflecting that last year we were in a similar situation where the Government was putting forward all these arguments why it should be putting up an Auckland fuel tax of 11.5 percent plus GST and also put forward a proposal—legislation—that we should have this form of excise tax—two lots of 3.5c. We've heard today and we've heard countless times in this House that yes Mr Jones talks about the national land transport and the Government policy statement—and we all understand that Mr Jones; some of us read the papers. The focus has gone from safety—not only safety and mode shift and particularly buses which we're all very aware of—but the other thing is there's now this removal of this issue around congestion. We had it confirmed by the ex-chair—the one who's just recently stepped down alongside the recently stepped down CEO—of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) that congestion was no longer a priority for the NZTA and a lot of that was to do with the Minister.I thought it would be worthwhile in that intervening time over the break to actually go back and look at some of the documentation that was put forward by the Government at the time that excise tax was introduced. It's interesting—this is all in relation to the excise when it was introduced. The transport Minister said there is a need to increase excise and charges to fund roads and public transport initiatives. He talked about the 3.5c a litre—two lots of course—coming in 30 September. One of the issues in this bill Mr Speaker as you no doubt know is that that change is not from 30 September but actually 1 July. So it's interesting. The lovely little press release actually referred to a specific date.Hon Shane Jones: Petty. Petty.ANDREW BAYLY: Oh it's not petty Mr Jones. For a person on your very excessive salary it may be petty but for the people of my electorate and living in places like Waiuku and Kawakawa Bay actually it a lot of money. It's a lot of money and you're arrogant to be able to suggest it's not.What this Minister did go on to say—Hon Shane Jones: He's a howler!SPEAKER: Turn the volume down.ANDREW BAYLY: —Aucklanders are already facing an 11.5c rise in the cost of petrol—was "Auckland[ers] alone lose $1.3 billion a year in productivity to congestion. We will tackle gridlock in Auckland by giving commuters options through major road projects and upgrades such as Mill Road and Penlink."—the new money will be spent on roads and public transport and road safety. That's all in relation to the excise tax bill that we're talking about tonight.SPEAKER: Yeah right!ANDREW BAYLY: On the very same day I went on the Labour website. It's called LabourVoices—June 28: "We're reducing congestion in our cities with a number of major road projects and upgrades." Very interesting! "As well as this we're completing any current ongoing expressway projects and allowing up to $9.5 billion of future State Highway upgrades." Well I've got to suggest that was all in relation to the proposal to bring in excise taxes last year. Somehow in the space of 12 months not only have we seen the Minister go back on his word about when these excise taxes would be introduced but also he was very very specific about the purpose of these. I think that borders on recklessness because I think to make that statement—and it was in two places and it was well-documented—is actually a very poor thing for a Minister and the Government. As I've said before to be introducing this tax bill at this point is incredible.But the other thing I would say to you is I think there's a lack of logic in this excise tax bill that we're discussing tonight. What this Government over there is doing is imposing more taxes on car users to help the Government to fund projects other than those which deal with traffic congestion. I think that is the travesty about this bill. That is the travesty about what you clearly said—and when I say "you" I'm referring to the Minister—a mere 12 months ago. We've got Government Ministers over the other side there including the associate transport Minister who's interjecting rather loudly. There is a lack of veracity around what the purpose of this money—SPEAKER: Order! Take care.ANDREW BAYLY: —this excise tax is going to be used for.Now just on the final thing—Hon Shane Jones: GPS.ANDREW BAYLY: I know about the GPS Minister but what I'd also say for those people using motorways such as electric cars and buses they are also part of that network. Therefore in terms of roading projects it is a legitimate purpose and one that is not contemplated in this bill.The final thing I want to do deal with is the question of regression. I talked about the regressive nature of this tax and then I listened with somewhat horror to this absurd statement by the Minister of Transport Mr Twyford who at the opening of his address of the second reading made the comment that this tax is not regressive. Again I find that very very disappointing because in the accompanying papers in the departmental report in here the regulatory impact statement—Hon Shane Jones: It's one page.ANDREW BAYLY: You should have read it Associate Minister. I suggest the Associate Minister of Transport should read the regulatory impact statement before he interjects because he is showing a degree of ignorance that borders on—again if you want to make the claim that you know everything make sure you know it Minister and I suggest you don't.So specifically in here Minister of Transport are the words around regression and it is absolute 101 economics that taxes of this nature are regressive. And for you to make the claim that they're not I'd love you to come out to places like Waiuku and Kawakawa Bay and explain why they're not. When you live a long way out and you have no option around public transport and you travel much further than other parts to get to your work because you have no other choice—to say that is not regressive is I think a shocking statement and shows a total lack of economics and business sense and I'm horrified to hear that from the Minister."