Brown Peter: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17207] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me make it clear that parts of this bill concern us. Our first concern is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. We cannot understand why the words “principles of” are included. Nobody in this House can explain it. Nobody in this House took a call in any of the debates to attempt to clarify what it means. Frankly to include those words in such a clause is at best patronising to Maori and at worst insulting to all New Zealanders. That clause should have been amended by omitting any reference to the word “principles”. Nobody understands it and it should not be there. It is not good law. Many in my caucus are exceedingly angry about it. 
We also object to the regional fuel tax. We do not object in principle—we understand there needs to be a basis for local regions to get funding—but because it could have been done by alternative methods. It could have been done very simply by using windfall GST. And if it was to be phased in as it is in the bill now just the windfall GST on petrol alone would have given sufficient funding. [ 
Interruption 
] Actually I say to the Minister they are not. Ultimately they might but right now they are not. The GST collected on fuel at the moment is still on the increase. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We’ll see Pete. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well it might ultimately go down. But the point is that it could easily be funded equal to the funding that is now currently in the bill—1c or 2c next year 4c on petrol and if necessary windfall GST on diesel. The motorist is getting slugged enough in this country—they are the only words I can use for it. I would have thought that the Government would take note of their concerns and say that it would look at using the windfall GST to some effect. 
However there are some things in this bill we are delighted to see. The bill provides for better longer-term planning and we think that is an excellent move. The bill makes provision for combining Transit and Land Transport New Zealand into one entity and we think that is a good move providing that the governance is correct—and it appears to be correct—and that there is competent management accountability and transparency. When I read the bill I think it has addressed virtually all those concerns. 
We are absolutely delighted that there will be some funding for the leisure boat industry in terms of aid for search and rescue. The excise tax paid on the fuel that goes into leisure boats will be transferred on an as-required basis—and it amounts to $19 million a year—to aid search and rescue operations and to fund a regime of education for maritime safety. We think that is excellent. That measure is written into New Zealand First’s policy. That is the only place I have ever seen it written down and the Minister of Transport was gracious enough to acknowledge that it came from New Zealand First’s initiative. 
We are hugely delighted that finally the Government has decided to hypothecate all the excise tax on petrol. Currently $600 million a year or thereabouts—the figure might be in the high $500 millions but it is very close to $600 million—will go into the National Land Transport Fund and that is something that New Zealand First has long advocated. Certainly well before New Zealand First had any strong position in this Parliament we advocated that all the excise tax taken on petrol should go into the National Land Transport Fund. 
I am disappointed in the Hon Maurice Williamson because this is the third time—the third time—he has walked away from achieving that. In 1995 when the Rt Hon Winston Peters had a bill that did just that Maurice Williamson as the then Minister of Transport led the attack on it. He said it was a silly idea as there would not be enough projects to cover the money that would be transferred across and that it should be dismissed. National voted against it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Well that was then; this is now. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh that was then; this is now! That is what I like! But the member has done the same thing now. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Because of other stuff in the bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Let me say that in 1998 when Winston Peters was Treasurer and he transferred 2.1c across into the land transport account from the Crown account within months of us leaving the coalition it was all transferred. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You walked out. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is saying we walked away but we did not walk away. We got the grand order of the boot and the member is well aware of it. 
As I was saying that measure was stopped dead in its tracks. After his road to Damascus experience and just before the last election he said: “This must occur. We must hypothecate all the excise tax into the National Land Transport Fund.” Now when the National Party has the opportunity to do so it will vote against it. Six hundred million dollars or thereabouts a year will go into the National Land Transport Fund and the member is voting against it. I have to say that I cannot understand the logic of the member. 
Pansy Wong who spoke before me said that the regional fuel tax will amount to nothing because of the Prime Minister’s statement but National members will vote against that. There is no rationale at all. The Hon Maurice Williamson said that in 1993 or whenever he listened to local councils and separated Transfund and Transit—because he listened to the local bodies. The local bodies came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and with as much passion as I dare suggest they displayed in 1993 they said: “Give us a regional fuel tax.” There was not one exception—there was not one exception. 
But the Hon Maurice Williamson and National will vote against it. In 1993 they listened to the local bodies and voted accordingly; in 2008 they listened to the local bodies and voted against their wishes. Where is the consistency? We have to take note that by approving the regional fuel tax we are simply giving local bodies the ability to apply for it if they have the right projects. Parliament is not imposing a regional fuel tax on anybody. We are giving the local regions the ability to apply for a regional fuel tax if they have sufficient projects that are worthy of such funding. 
Hypothecation is a long time coming; a long time coming. The correct use of excise tax on roading some years ago would have resulted in huge economic advantages for this country. We could have avoided much of the congestion in Auckland if we had built the roads earlier. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The Tories would have lowered taxes you see. That’s what their prime purpose in life is—to privatise and lower taxes. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member has already had his call but I am sure he could take another one if he sought leave. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He didn’t say much when he had his call. I wonder why he’s saying a lot now. 
PETER BROWN 
: He had a short call yes. I think that this country is suffering because of the lack of finance injected into roading in this country and it is about time we addressed the issue. Public-private partnerships are not the answer. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why? 
PETER BROWN 
: Because they add another component to the equation and that is profit. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why do they work elsewhere? 
PETER BROWN 
: They do not necessarily work overseas. I spoke to the British and they gave me the rules and regulations that they work to. True they choose public-private partnerships in certain areas but not always. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Any advantage to coastal shipping? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member talks about coastal shipping. I almost overlooked that. I thank the member very much. This bill will allow the Government to inject the $36 million into coastal shipping which has been a long time coming. The National Party ignored that issue when it was brought to its attention 11 years ago.