Williamson Maurice: Address in Reply 
Williamson Maurice: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:436] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Tonight I want to run the House through a series of unfortunate events and anyone who has followed Lemony Snicket will know what that is about. I want to go back to earlier in the year when Dr Don Brash was on the campaign trail and made what I think was one of the best announcements of the campaign. It was that the National Party if elected would spend all the petrol tax on roading. It would not do it immediately as $600 million could not be put across in one shot but over a 6-year period it would move $100 million then $200 million then $300 million then $400 million and so on. For those members opposite who are not good at hard sums over 10 years that adds up to $4.2 billion. That is $4.2 billion extra in addition to and above what is already in the National Land Transport Programme. 
Hon David Carter 
: Solve a lot of problems! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It would solve a helluva lot of problems as my colleague the Hon David Carter says. 
I have a number of press releases that were issued by both the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Hon Pete Hodgson at the time and I want to share with the House what they said about National’s policy. They said that Dr Brash’s plan was to cut back the amount of fuel duty used to offset the costs in the normal account which would leave the taxpayer with a $4 billion gaping hole. They also said that Dr Brash had not created a single dollar of new money to cover roading costs and that all he was doing was shifting money from one account to another. “How will he make up the shortfall?” asked Pete Hodgson. I want the House to listen to this because it is what the Minister said: “Will he cut expenditure on health and education? Or will he borrow like some born-again Muldoon”—I do not think that is something Dr Brash has been accused of very often in his life—“and cause interest rates to increase?”. Both Minister Hodgson and Minister Cullen said that National’s plan to move the petrol tax to the road account was fiscally irresponsible. I have three press releases here if they want to see them. They are actually on the Labour Party’s website. I do not know why it does not take them off it. That is what those Ministers said about our proposal which was announced on 1 April to move the petrol tax to the road account. 
What happened? I can tell members what happened. Over the next few months it became very clear from our internal polling—and clearly from Labour’s polling because they poll like fruitcakes over there; they were out there every night—that the policy of moving the petrol tax to the road account was very popular. The public said that it had had a gutsful of spending so much money at the bowser that was headed off to hip-hop tours twilight golf and so on—money that did not go to the roads as they wanted it to. 
It became clear to Labour that it was in a bit of a bind so we started to see the slippage. At first it was gradual. Like any great landslide it was just a bit of a slippage. The first one was the Budget. In May Dr Michael Cullen said that Labour would put in another $100 million for the next 3 years—that is three lots of $100 million or $300 million. It certainly was not quite as much as National had pledged but it was a start along the way. Then we started to see the one-off commitments. Members should remember that they were in addition to what National had already pledged as well. Labour said that it was starting with the Auckland programme and that it would commit an extra $900 million of money from the Crown account. It had two packages for Wellington one of which was for $600 million. It then announced another one for $225 million. That comes to $825 million if Labour members want to add up the two numbers. 
Then the doozy of them all occurred in July. It fell from the sky. I know not from where it fell but it fell—a $544 million windfall. The public fell around their latte glasses laughing at that because Dr Cullen’s management of the economy was so good that $544 million which is not a small amount of money just popped out from nowhere. What was that money to be for? I can tell members how much amazing analysis went into where it should go. On the very same day he announced it would go to roading. It was really getting very good. The Bay of Plenty package was the next to come out. Obviously that was to try to shore up some things in the Bay of Plenty party vote. Then we got the classic in August. If we add up National’s petrol-tax commitment we find we had pledged to spend an extra $600 million in the first 3 years—$100 million then $200 million then $300 million. Let us work with just the first 3 years of budget. The Labour Minister’s press statement stated: “National halves transport spending to fund tax cuts.” When I saw that I went “What?”. We had just been accused of fiscal irresponsibility and asked how we could afford to spend $600 million. We were told that we had better front up and say where the money was coming from yet 4 months later that press release came from the Hon Pete Hodgson. Then he put out a table to show the numbers. That was even better. It showed that Labour would spend $1200 million extra on roading. 
I want to ask every Labour member in this House including the Ministers about that. If $600 million extra on roading was fiscally irresponsible—if it was “Muldoon-esque” if it meant we had to cut health and education—then what the hell was $1200 million? Darren Hughes looks dumbstruck. He cannot even begin to answer what the hell $1200 million would be if $600 million was fiscally irresponsible. We have won the rights to the Rugby World Cup in 2011. On a rugby field one can see a great thing called a goalpost and it looks like the letter “H”. There is a word that starts with the letter “H” that I think that smacks of. I cannot use that word—you will not let me use it Mr Deputy Speaker; I understand that—but everybody in this House knows what it is. When for example in April $600 million was fiscally irresponsible it was dreadful and Dr Brash was told he had better say where he was going to fund it from yet 4 months later Labour said it would double that amount to $1200 million. 
There is still a long way to go and in the second half of my speech I want to deal with my real concern for the Auckland situation when it comes to the Rugby World Cup. If we have the influx of visitor numbers into Auckland that is expected—and I hope we do—then I can tell members that the roading network will not cope. It cannot cope now. I can tell Darren Hughes that if he flew into Auckland on a Friday afternoon and arrived at Mangere airport at 5 o’clock and tried to make his way into the city he would spend about an hour in a long long queue of traffic trying to get across the Mangere Bridge with nothing but a stream of red lights ahead of him. Then suddenly he would come to an intersection that should have a sign on it saying: “You are on your own from here sucker. Find your way to town because there ain’t a road to do it on.” and he would then have to work himself out into a series of little urban tree-lined streets and cul-de-sacs and try to work his way into the city. 
Several things were planned to fix that. The first one I want to deal with is the State Highway 20 Mount Roskill extension. If any members are interested they should look at Transit’s website to see when that was going to be built. Right back in 2000 Transit said it would start later that year. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Which year? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is what it said in 2000 so I presume it meant 2000. Then 2001 came and Transit said: “Later this year.” The doozy of them all came on 31 October 2001 when it stated: “State Highway 20 Mount Roskill extension to start early next year and be completed by May 2005.” 
Dr Don Brash 
: Was it finished? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Dr Brash asks a very good question. I can tell him that it was not finished by May 2005. It was not started by May 2005! I can tell members when it was started: 3 weeks before the election! Three weeks before the election we saw Helen Clark Phil Goff and Pete Hodgson all with their spades looking as though they had done something in 6 years. That was because they knew how vulnerable they were in relation to that road which had been desperately needed for years. All I can say is that if the other parts of that roading network experience anything like the delays that have been experienced under this Labour Government then Auckland is in for nothing but sheer chaos in 2011. To get from Mangere airport into the city State Highway 20 needs to be completed. People need to be able to connect to the north-western motorway and get down it. There is one nice little bit of that project that does not even have a scheduled start date and that is the Avondale extension that goes through the Prime Minister’s electorate. I tell the House that it is on record that the Prime Minister has said: “That road will go through my electorate over my dead body.” I say to the House that that is a very small price to pay for a good road. 
Darren Hughes 
: Dream on. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No there is no dreaming on. It is the Prime Minister who is the dreamer. She said she would allow the road as long as it was a tunnel. A tunnel would add over $1 billion to the cost of the project. It would make it totally uneconomic and nonsensical and it will not happen. But the fear I have is that that road must be completed before the Rugby World Cup starts; otherwise all of the showcasing of New Zealand to foreign countries will make us look like a parking lot with cars stuck going nowhere. People will need to leave on a Friday to get to a Saturday rugby match if Auckland experiences the sorts of things that will happen without that project being completed. And that is if everything is done according to the schedule. Nothing ever has been done according to the schedule and this House should hold the Government to account for that.