Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19041] 
7.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he agree with calculations made by the Automobile Association that the introduction of the petrol tax and higher oil prices will see the price of petrol rise to over $1.30 per litre; if so what impact does he think this will have on the economy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 My informed answer is that I do not know. If I were able to predict movements in oil prices or exchange rates then I would be as rich as the Opposition member. 
John Key 
: If an operating balance of $7.4 billion a cash surplus of $1.4 billion and the very strong likelihood that New Zealand will have net debt of zero by 2008 are not conditions that this Government thinks are conducive enough to allow it to build more roads without adding any additional taxes then will the Minister be kind enough to tell us what the surplus would have to be before he would not have to put on more taxes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The tradition in New Zealand is that we build roads largely from motorists’ moneys not from taxpayers’ moneys because it is motorists not taxpayers who use them. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on transport funding? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have of course seen many reports. All the ones that I will quote from are from the National Party and they all conflict. First of all leader Don Brash included the money from the increase in his promise to Aucklanders then John Key told him not to spend anything as it was “not time to be ramping up Government spending” then National voted against the money that Dr Brash had already promised to Aucklanders and then Maurice Williamson told him to spend the money and to use it from a surplus that he knows does not exist. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely you can see the disorder we get to when the Government makes these changes without considering what the consequence of such change will be. The Minister just gave an answer by referring to comments made by the Opposition. We are quite happy for him to go around publicising our policy positions any time he likes but question time is for him to answer for Government policy. What we have had him say today is: “I don’t know” “I am not sure” and “I can’t say”. If the Government is able to transfer questions of this sort of importance to any old Minister who can use those responses as answers then the point of question time does seriously come into question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I just want to submit that it was not one at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister should confine himself to his own portfolio responsibility; I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 51/4 and 51/5. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If it is a New Zealand tradition to build roads not from taxpayers’ money as he said but from motorists’ money then why have he and his colleagues engaged in the outright deception of disguising the fact that a lot of the money collected for that purpose which comes from motorists and road users is not in any way going into road maintenance road safety or road construction? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: All the money from the petrol increase which formed the basis of the question—every last cent of it from the petrol increase that formed the basis of the question—is going into roading. However if the member wishes to ask about the money that goes into the consolidated account he may want to reflect on last week’s answer from the Minister of Finance about the role of capital charging and how that alone would not be covered by the diversion. Or he may like to take cognisance of the fact that the non - accident compensation health costs and the benefit costs of roading well exceed the diversion into the consolidated account—well exceed it. 
Mike Ward 
: Does the Minister not think that if more money is invested in public transport cycling and pedestrian initiatives in fact motorists may save money and avoid some of the petrol taxes and that if enough of them take up those smarter choices we may negate the need for future roading projects? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: To an extent yes. 
John Key 
: Does he agree with his fellow Minister Rick Barker when he said: “Some have suggested that the country should borrow the money for improving the roading infrastructure obviously thinking these loans don’t have to be paid back and that somehow loan money is free—in other words voodoo economics.” and if he does agree with Mr Barker is he telling the House today that he is ruling out all Government borrowing to fund any future new roads in this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I rather suspect my colleague was referring to the points of view held by some members in this House including some members in New Zealand First. In that respect the answer to the second part of the question is no. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How long will it take for him to familiarise himself with his job and acknowledge that Dr Cullen has been prepared to acknowledge to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that there is no capital charge on roading and therefore his answer to this House today is a cod load of drivel? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer on capital charge was not given by me; it was given to this House last week by Dr Cullen. My answer concerned non - accident compensation health and benefit costs from roading and I will give the member the unfortunate facts again. The diversion into the consolidated account does not pay for those costs. 
John Key 
: Did he notice that last year Transfund did not spend all the funds that were in its account and neither did it do so for the year earlier; and can he confirm to the House whether this year there will be any surplus funds left in those accounts over and above the petrol tax he is collecting? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The activity from this Government in addressing the infrastructural deficit left by the previous Government is such that not only are there substantial year-by-year increases in capital investment but the underspend of last year and the year before is rapidly disappearing. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague John Key’s question was very specific. It was in regard to the surpluses that have been held by Transfund New Zealand. I listened to the Minister’s answer. There was no comment at all in his answer with respect to the issue of the surpluses held by Transfund New Zealand. I think as Speaker you should require the Minister to address John Key’s question. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: If the member had paid attention to the end of the answer as well as to the beginning he would know that he was completely wrong in what he has just asserted. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened closely to the question and the Minister did address it at the end of his answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table Dr Cullen’s answer in this House where he did not claim that there was capital charging but said “if there was”—a totally different answer from what the Minister gave the House today. 
Document not tabled.