Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18623] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Thank you for that. I am delighted that I was not stopped by a closure motion. My adoring drive time audience will be out there right now stuck in the traffic gridlocked and listening intently to this speech. 
Two issues have arisen during the passage of this bill. First if members seem to be opposed to this bill then Labour portrays them as not wanting any more roads to be built. Well let us just get that clear before we then talk about the date this comes into effect. The fact is that if the Labour Government—and I made this point before—between 1984 and 1990 which the Hon Phil Goff was a member of had wanted to put another 5c on the petrol tax I could have understood that. During that time the Government accounts were in deficit. Every year it was spending more than it was bringing in. If that Government had wanted some money to spend on more roading projects clearly it would have had to find it somewhere. It was already short. Is that the case today? Do we have a Government today that has a deficit on its books? The answer is no. Does it have a really minor surplus that is quite fragile such that it could not afford to sacrifice even the $200 million that this bill will bring in? The answer is no. What is the surplus? It is about $7000 million per annum. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Jealous! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well actually I am angry more than jealous that we are taking much more off the punters of this country than is needed. But let us just take the petrol tax that is taken off them. I challenge Clayton Cosgrove to do one of his little roadside tricks as he did with the boy racer and come with me to the southern motorway in Auckland. We will stand on the side of the road with a sign saying: “Honk if you think the Government should take another 5c in petrol tax from you.” I tell that member that we will be standing all day by the side of that motorway before we hear a honk because the public do not think it is needed. They do think we need some more infrastructure but they know that the Government has a $7 billion surplus and they know that the Government takes $600 million a year in petrol tax that does not go on the roads. Yes other parts of the petrol tax do but $600 million does not. 
Then we get to what I think is the most cynical move of all and that is the date that this increase will come into effect. When the bill was introduced the Government was flying high. Nothing could stand in its way. It was going to be a third-term Labour Government—something the world has dreaded for years but it was looking as if it might be a possibility. So it made the date 1 April. That is when this measure was to come into effect. But suddenly Michael Cullen found a cold wind blowing up his kilt and he went: “Oh dear! We’ve got an election coming up not long after that. We’ve got high petrol prices worldwide.” I do not blame Jim Anderton for the entire world petrol price being high; I blame him for part of it—because I blame Jim Anderton for nearly everything—but in fact there has been the Iraq war supply problems Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries problems and so on. But I ask the Minister what the price of a barrel of light sweet crude oil is today or what a barrel of Brent crude oil costs today. 
Peter Brown 
: $44. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is about US$44 or US$45. So what Michael Cullen has done with this cynical little amendment is make this increase come into effect not on 1 April—goodness me no; that would be just as the election campaign was getting away—but when the timing is right. We all know what that means. It means that as soon as he has an election under his belt so that the increase will not cost him he will be straight in. Michael Cullen will have the papers drawn up; he will have them waiting at the Cabinet Office for the seal to be put on them. The good news is he will not actually be in Government after the next election to do it. 
However here is the point. Here is the challenge just in case that dreadful prospect happens. What if after the election it costs US$45 for a barrel of Brent crude oil? That is what it costs right now and it probably is too high as the Minister says. The reason why he does not want to bring the increase into effect on 1 April is nothing to do with elections nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with anger from the public about being socked even more tax; it is just about the price of crude oil. All right; can I get a commitment from the Minister in the chair that if light sweet crude oil or Brent crude oil stays at the US$45 mark after the election the same attitude will apply and this increase will not come in? There is not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper. How is that—not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper? What if world petrol prices stay at the same level they are now? The increase will not be brought in because of high petrol prices; that is the answer from the Minister of Finance—he will not bring it in because of high petrol prices. But when asked whether if petrol prices are at that same level after the election he would carry on with that attitude there is not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper.