Twyford PhilSecond ReadingHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I move That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to make a contribution in this second reading of the debate and respond to some of the remarks that were made particularly by the National Opposition members in the first reading. A lot of the comments that we heard from the Opposition benches were really an objection to any further revenue gathering for the sake of the transport system. I just want to make a few observations about that. The party opposite when they get up in the morning and look in the mirror they like to see a reflection of a party of fiscal prudence but actually the way this debate has been conducted by those members I think really gives the lie to that notion that they are in fact the party of fiscal prudence. The members tonight are opposing this bill on the basis that it's revenue gathering but their record in Government over nine years—and I know the 18 months since the last election seems like a very long time for the members opposite actually it's not a very long time at all. But I want to remind them because they've clearly forgotten that during their time in office they increased the take from petrol tax by 24c a litre.Dr Duncan Webb: How much? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: 24c a litre during their—and tonight they come down to the House and object to the fact that we are putting it up by 3.5c a year twice over the next two years. It's also worth noting I think—Kiritapu Allan: There's a word for that.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —for the benefit—I wouldn't say that word do you mean inconsistency? Kiritapu Allan: That's what I meant. Yeah sure.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes perhaps inconsistency is the right description. But the party of fiscal prudence the National Party—they would like to see themselves regarded in that light—during the last election campaign they went around the country and promised 10 new motorway projects. Ten new motorway projects that added up would have cost $12 billion. Kiritapu Allan: Did they set aside the funds for it? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No they were completely unbudgeted. There was no decision making there was no planning there was no funding. SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. As I indicated in my earlier ruling the second reading is the widest of all the debates. The member has however used just about 25 percent of his speech without focusing on the bill. He will now at least have some passing reference to it.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you Mr Speaker. This revenue bill—the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill—has aroused in the Opposition benches very strong objections in that they don't want to be part of gathering revenue for a transport policy that they don't agree on. They're against this bill increasing the petrol excise by 3.5c for the coming year and the consequent changes to the road-user charges because they don't like what that money would be spent on. I cannot allow the moment to pass without observing what that says about the National Party's transport policy: they are threatened by rail; they have a visceral hostility to rail. They are threatened by walking and cycling infrastructure. They are philosophically opposed to spending money on public transport. SPEAKER: Second warning. This bill is about excise and just reading out the title of it and then going back to a speech about another party's policy is even with a very broad second reading approach to things—and this is a broader stage and I want to warn members that it's going to get a lot tighter going forward. This is the second warning and it is the last warning. The Minister's speech will be curtailed if he strays again. Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to comment on the third main objection that we heard from the Opposition benches in the earlier debate and that was the assertion that increasing the petrol excise or the petrol excise itself is somehow a regressive tax. Now on the face of it a 3.5c increase in the excise for people of all different incomes and means is regressive but what the members fail to take into account is that this is about gathering the revenue taking into account inflation and avoiding what would in effect be real cuts to transport revenue. It's far more regressive not to invest in the kind of transport policy that we have and that is to build in our cities a decent public transport system—that is far more regressive. People who have to get to work every day and cross the city who are forced to own a car and spend in the region of $10000 a year running a vehicle because there is no decent public transport system—they face the real regressive charge of decades of underinvestment in public transport. That is the reason why we have to protect the revenue stream for the transport system. We have to protect it against inflation by periodically increasing excise as that party did—as that party did—to the tune of 24c a litre during the time it was in office. If we don't protect the revenue flow for the transport system and if we don't then invest in a decent public transport system so that New Zealanders have genuine choices about how they get around then we will be doing a terrible disservice to New Zealanders and this Government is not prepared to let that happen. We've heard the cry tax and spend" coming from the Opposition benches repeatedly through this debate and what I say to them is that they may not be a "tax and spend" party on that side of the House; they're just a "spend" party because they promise over and over and over—they promise expenditure but they're not willing to recognise that that requires revenue gathering. That is a fundamental inconsistency and shows I think a lack of integrity in relation to the transport policy. So I urge the Opposition to tell us in the rest of this debate—SPEAKER: All right. Thank you."