Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9714] 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Further to his answer to oral question No. 3 on 17 September when does he intend making available the result of the economic analysis of diversions from the petrol excise tax into the Crown account? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I was referring to the surface transport costs and charges study commissioned by the Ministry of Transport. That work is nearing completion with the final report due in the first half of next year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the real analysis of the situation is that the motorist pays for example $27.25 in taxes for 50 litres and that only one quarter of that or $6.95 is spent on the roads does the Government intend to continue to treat road users as cash cows whilst it introduces road tolling? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I certainly can assert that that figure is wrong. The member may cast his mind back to the period just before the election when the Automobile Association with the enthusiastic support of a number of political parties stated that if the full cost of roading were to be covered by the motorist a substantial increase in excise duty would have to be imposed. 
John Key 
: What does the Minister consider to be this Government’s biggest con when it comes to Auckland’s roads: the fact that over half of the 4.7c petrol tax is siphoned off to the Crown account; the fact that the Land Transport Management Bill is so absolutely hopeless that this Government has started work on new legislation before the bill is even passed; or the fact that this Minister claims that there are not enough construction companies on the entire planet to fix Auckland’s problems? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point that was a result agreed by the joint officials committee in respect of limits on construction. The member is entirely wrong on the 4.7c—all of that money went into land transport. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that Government revenue for 2002-03 from petroleum fuels amounted to $995 million and that income to the national roading fund from petrol excise for the same period was $601 million which leaves a balance of $394 million the majority of which would have remained in the Crown account; if not can he clarify those figures? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. As I understand it that is the correct figure for the 2002-03 year. It must be remembered of course that the cost of capital for roading is not covered out of the excise duty. That is the reason for the answer I gave earlier. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is it that the Minister of Finance alone seems not to know that the current year’s collections are in excess of $2.223 billion—the purpose of which is to build and maintain roads and for road safety—yet $1.29 billion is being spent; why is the taxpayer and the road user being robbed blind by this Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The road user and taxpayer are not being robbed blind. Indeed even if the member’s assertions were correct the taxpayer would be the gainer. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister explain the large increase between the $394 million referred to earlier—diverted from the national roads account last year—and the $573 million forecast to remain in the Crown account from fuel excise and customs duty income of $1.128 billion as outlined in figure 2 of Transfund’s 10-year forecast for 2003-04? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that the first figure refers to petrol excise duty only whereas the second—the forecast—refers to petrol excise and customs duty. Therefore that figure is inevitably higher than the first.