Brown Peter: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18412] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me make it quite clear: New Zealand First is totally opposed to this bill because there is absolutely no justification for it. It is not fair or necessary to saddle the motorists with an additional 5.6c in tax—that is 5c goes into the tax coffers and 0.6c is GST. So it all goes into the tax coffers. It is an absolute outrage. 
I think the Minister told us that this move would result on average in something like $207 million in revenue per year over the next few years. I point out to the Minister that the Government now takes 18.475c for every litre of petrol. That money goes into the consolidated account and it would equate over a 10-year period to something like $7 billion. The national land transport strategy tells us that over a 10-year period the Government would collect from motorists and various other sources something like $18.7 billion including the revenue that comes from this additional tax. The two taxes are segregated into national distributed expenditure and regional distributed expenditure. From memory I think the Government stated that the figures for regional distributed expenditure—this tax effectively—would amount to $2.8 billion and for national distributed expenditure it would be $15.1 billion. On top of that the Government would take an additional $7 billion or possibly a sum closer to $8 billion to go into the consolidated account. 
New Zealand First says that the Government should use that money first. Just about every political party in this House advocates some form of tax concession some sort of leniency towards the taxpayer. The exception would be the Greens. I think they want to tax a little bit more do they not? United Future ACT and certainly National want to ease up on tax and New Zealand First also suggests that the tax take in this country is too high. How do the political parties that support this bill—and I am aiming particularly at United Future—justify saying in one breath that taxes should be cut and a bit given back to the public then saying in the next breath that it is OK to tax motorists more on their petrol and to index everything to inflation? How do they justify that? I cannot. I cannot look motorists in the eye and say that on the one hand I want to tax them more but on the other hand I want to give them back a bit more in some other area when I know that the Government already takes a huge amount of money from the petrol motorist. 
Jill Pettis 
: But it gives it all back. 
PETER BROWN 
: That member will vote for this bill but with due respect she is absolutely clueless. Does she not know that 18.475c per litre of petrol goes into the consolidated account and not back into roading? [ 
Interruption 
] I can assure her that I am correct. I can enlighten her a little bit further. That amounts to in excess of $600 million a year. 
Jill Pettis 
: We spend it. 
PETER BROWN 
: We spend it on anything but roads. The other day the Prime Minister said in her statement to this House that road funding has not kept pace with roads and road demand. She was absolutely correct in that remark. Over many many years all Governments have seen fit to take money from the motorist and spend it in other areas. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What’s New Zealand First’s policy? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a good question and I will tell the member. There is a second part to the equation. It is the way we fund roads. I suggest to the honourable member that at some time or other most buildings houses commercial buildings residential buildings and farms have a mortgage on them. In other words the owner borrows against future income. Most vehicle owners lease their cars or use hire purchase. I am not in a position to say exactly how many but a significant number of people lease cars or pay for them by hire purchase. In other words they borrow against their future income. Yet with roading we operate on a “pay as you go” system. 
We should look at roading in this country in a more businesslike fashion. We know that it has been starved of funding and that it needs an urgent injection of capital. I have just illustrated that the $15.1 billion to be collected by the Government over the next 10 years which is to be dedicated to roading and transport matters plus the other $7 billion I have referred to which goes into Dr Cullen’s pockets should be used to advance roading in this country. What will happen as a result? It is all very well for my colleague Harry Duynhoven to mutter but he knows that the Allen Consulting Group has said that it is worthwhile borrowing for roading. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Will the member answer a simple question? Where is the other $7 billion going to come from under your proposal? 
PETER BROWN 
: I would say to the honourable member that the Government has such a large surplus it does not know what to do with it. I am not suggesting that the 18.5c goes back in one chunk. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The member didn’t answer the question. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member asked me a question and I am answering it. I am not suggesting for one minute that the 18.5c per litre of petrol goes back to roading in one chunk but it should be phased in. It could be phased in and the Government could tell local authorities Transit and the people involved in construction and roading to put up a business plan and fund this roading on advanced income. New Zealand First would support that. 
New Zealand First says that if there were a commitment for all the money that was taken from the motorist to go back to roading there would be no need for borrowing. On a phase-in basis I believe—and my New Zealand First colleagues support me on this—that there is a need for borrowing. However the economic gains as illustrated in the Allen report would be huge. The Government would pay the money back with any reasonable form of interest. The Allen report indicates for example 6 percent interest 8 percent interest and 10 percent interest. The Government could pay loan back the loan and the gains for this country would be huge particularly in regions where roads need to be upgraded. 
When it comes to funding transport roading and those sorts of things we had better start thinking in a 21st century type of manner. We are past the days of “pay as you go” and the Government ought to start thinking that it has no right to sit on the motorist’s dollar to the detriment of the roads. People are dying on roads that should have been upgraded years ago. The member Jill Pettis shakes her head. She does not believe me. 
Jill Pettis 
: Stop being silly. He can’t do anything. 
PETER BROWN 
: I suggest to the honourable member that she look just south of the Bombay Hills to see the problems we are having. That road should have been upgraded years ago. Its upgrade is now planned. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We’re doing it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Hon Harry Duynhoven acknowledges that so I thank him. Umpteen people have died on that road. I know that the intention is to do something but it is a good example of roading problems that should have been addressed years and years ago. 
Roading in this country has been starved of funds. Here we have the opportunity to address the problem in a businesslike manner without adding to the costs of the motorist. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What about tolling? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member raises a good point. I could keep going for another half an hour on tolling. There is no need for tolling. That would come on top of this lot. The member laughs; he thinks it is a joke. Those members clearly support tolling. Those members would say that as it is good enough to rob motorists of $7 billion it is also good enough to put 5c on motorists’ petrol and toll them. 
On behalf of my colleagues in New Zealand First I say that the bill is not necessary it is not fair and there is not one iota of justification for it.