Ardern Shane: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18425] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. There are a number of very sound reasons why that is so and I want to share those with the House tonight. 
First of all this Government like no other Government in the history of New Zealand has taxed New Zealanders well beyond the point where they need to be taxed. The Government has a $7.4 billion surplus and do members know that it is spending less money on roads—and has done over the 4 years it has been in Government particularly in the Auckland region—than what was being spent prior to its coming into power? Here we are tonight arguing about a further tax of another 5c a litre on “Joe Hardworker” the motorist out there who is battling away trying to survive despite the Government. 
I say to this Government: “Tax tax tax! There are 24 new taxes. Do you not understand that eventually you will be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back?”. Our best entrepreneurs have taken flight from New Zealand en masse as they have never done before in the history of New Zealand. They are in Australia in the UK and all around the world. In fact tonight on the news I noticed that the British Government has reduced the work visa from 2 years down to 1 because there are so many Kiwis working in the UK; it is now arguing that that is creating a problem. We have to ask why they are there. Is it just because they are doing OE or because they cannot survive here in New Zealand under the tax regime of this Government or cannot see a way forward to prosper? 
I ask Government members over there why they do not actually read some of the reports they have had commissioned. I have in front of me one from the Allen Consulting Group which absolutely states that roading infrastructure in New Zealand at the moment is a major impediment to growth rates in this country. Why do members not also go further into that report and have a look at some of the suggestions put forward by the various workshops groups talking heads and pointy heads that the Government has put together since it has been in power and ask why we cannot do some of the things those people suggest? For example they should allow Land Transport New Zealand and Transit to borrow against the strength of their balance sheets and build some of these roads. Why can they not do that? Government members should stand and tell the House why not. 
So far during this debate I have not heard a reason given. What I have heard is that if we slap another 5c of tax on petrol it will somehow or other help fix the problem. Well we all know that it will not. We all know that a large chunk of the money that is already siphoned off goes into the consolidated account and successive Governments—I am not entirely blaming this Government—have said that they cannot claw it back in one go because it would make too much of an impact on what is used to fund health education and suchlike. I suggest to the Government that it look at where the strengths lie at the moment and implement a policy that will allow those strengths such as the strength of the balance sheet to be leveraged against. 
It was interesting to listen to the member from New Zealand First say that that party would not support tolling. Well that is an interesting concept but right throughout that speech the senior Government whip interjected that the Tauranga bridge was built by means of tolling. That is the biggest argument I have heard tonight that weakens the Government’s position. That member was right—it was—and we could build a helluva lot more roads in New Zealand if we allowed the same thing to be done as was done in Tauranga. I say to the whip who kindly interjected and gave me that line that she is absolutely right. Why does she not talk to her Ministers who are saying that the Government will not have a bar of tolling; that it smells of privatisation corporatisation or something—certainly not socialism—and they will not allow it to happen. Why not? What is so wrong with it? If people want the roads and they are prepared to pay a bit extra in the areas where they want the roads in order to avoid sitting in traffic jams for endless hours why not let them? If they have the wherewithal to do it why not allow them to do it? 
We all know that one of the biggest problems with road development in New Zealand at the moment is not funding; funding is not the problem. The problem is getting a resource consent. We all know because the issue has been debated in this House for 5½ years that substantial amendments were proposed to the Resource Management Act which were initially drafted up by Owen McShane and Simon Upton and the Minister sitting opposite put a red pen through the whole lot. Then we had the bizarre situation where the incoming Labour Government gave funding to people who wanted to put forward vexatious claims against the development of roads. Those who wanted to argue the merits of preserving six hangi stones—thereby holding up a $600000 development on State Highway 3—were given legal aid to do so. 
Jill Pettis 
: Nonsense! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I kid you not. That is exactly what was allowed to happen. I say to the Minister that he should stand and take a call—as should the senior Government whip who is interjecting over there—to say that that is not so and that it did not happen. I am telling the House that that is exactly what happened and the Government knows it. 
The Government has imposed 24 new taxes so far since it came into power. How far does it think it can go? Where is the limit? When will it stop? Is there no end to this sensational concept of being able to grab money from “Joe Hardworker” load him up with more and hope he does not sink? Does it not understand that when it puts up the price of petrol by 5c a litre it is poor old “Joe Hardworker” a blue-colour Labour voter out there who pays the price? How does mum get the kids to school? The senior whip should answer that. Does she not drive the car to take the kids to school? Certainly there will not be a school bus because this Government has done away with most of them. They have to travel by car. 
I say to members opposite that it is the very people who help them and feed them that they are attacking—exactly those people. [ 
Interruption 
] The member who is interjecting should get out and about in her electorate and find out how many people are able to travel to school by bus. I tell her that a large number of them have written to me—because they cannot get a response from that member—saying they are struggling to get their kids to school because the bus is not up to speed. 
There is a further point that I must make tonight: this process is also an abuse of the parliamentary process. This bill indexes the price of petrol to the consumer price index and also indexes it to inflation. That gives the Labour executive the power to put the price of petrol up every year or every 6 months. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or not for political reasons. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Or not for political reasons—not for sound fiscal reasons. The Government can put our petrol price up—without the matter being brought back to this Parliament where it could be properly scrutinised—from now to eternity as a result of this legislation. I say to the member who has been interjecting throughout my speech that she should stand and tell us why that is fair. How is it that this Government can abuse the Westminster system to such an extent that the Government can go ahead with a proposal to increase the tax on petrol without it going through the full parliamentary process? That is power to the executive like we have never seen before. That is typical socialism. That is the worst kind of socialism and it allows people like the member opposite to decide when the Government can put the price of petrol up without even reference to this Parliament. 
I say to the member who is interjecting that what she needs to do is actually go out talk to some of her constituents and ask them whether they believe that a further 5c of tax on their petrol will fix the roads in Wanganui. That is a simple enough question. The member should be able to understand the concept. She should go to the constituents of the Whanganui electorate and ask: “Do you believe that a 5c petrol tax which was originally intended for Auckland and now is being divided up for political reasons across the nation will fix the roading problems in the Whanganui electorate?”. I know what the answer will be and it is certainly not “Yes.” They will tell that member in no uncertain terms and they will tell this Government in no uncertain terms that this tax is yet another stealth tax indexed against inflation and indeed against the consumer price index that it is wrong and that it will not work. This Government should look at some of the reports that it has had commissioned at huge expense and come up with a strategy that will fix New Zealand’s roads rather than imposing another 5c in tax.