Robertson Grant: Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Customs and Excise (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10378. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): 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 tootoday 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.GRANT ROBERTSON: 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 onCampbell 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.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is exactly what he said Mr Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No it’s not what he said.GRANT ROBERTSON: 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 onCampbell 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?GRANT ROBERTSON: 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.GRANT ROBERTSON: 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.