He would say that wouldn’t he

Written By: - Date published: 12:11 pm, June 16th, 2008 - 21 comments
Categories: same old national - Tags: , ,

Stuff reports that  National Party energy spokesman Gerry Brownlee has labelled the government’s inquiry into petrol pricing a cynical move that would not make a difference to prices.

A similar inquiry in Australia resulted in a decision to provide increased transparency for consumers by stipulating that the petrol was to be set and notified by petrol companies the previous evening.

Seems to me that it’s about time that National started coming up with some ideas of their own over and above their lightweight 14 bullet point policies. Double spaced they’d hardly fill a page.

So Ger, got any real solutions, or just more moans?

21 comments on “He would say that wouldn’t he ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. insider 1
    16 June 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Have you read the details of this “inquiry”?

    “The study will build on work already carried out as part of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report on the price of unleaded petrol, and consider implications for the New Zealand market.”

    “The consultant will refer to previous studies on the New Zealand industry, where appropriate, rather than re-do analysis. ”

    Classic officials’ enquiry. Done behind the scenes, no fuss, no real examination of fundamentals. Purely and simply an election year tub thumper.

    Personally I don’t think there is anything needing examination. Fuel’s a global market and we rise and fall on its tides. Do you know of anyone planning to build a petrol station to capture these surplus profits floating around?

    Interesting the Herald feedback columns are saying this is a waste of time, a govt diversion and tax is the issue.

  2. Phil 2
    16 June 2008 at 12:23 pm

    “A similar inquiry in Australia resulted in a decision to provide increased transparency for consumers by stipulating that the petrol [price] was to be set and notified by petrol companies the previous evening.”

    Ooooh… isn’t that such a big improvement! Australia has stipulated a notification standard which is already common practice… wow!

    Regardless of your like/dislike of Jezza, he’s spot on – this will have no effect whatsoever on fuel prices. You know it, I know it, the Gov’t knows it too. So why the hell are they wasting everyones time?!

  3. Tane 3
    16 June 2008 at 12:24 pm

    I tend to agree that this won’t make a real difference on prices – maybe a cent or two here and there, but fundamentally it’s an issue of supply and demand that only higher wages and more intelligent transport planning can take care of.

    Would be nice to see some positive answers from Gerry though, I’m getting sick of his whinging.

  4. Peter Nelson 4
    16 June 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Tax is the only way to reduce the price big boy.

    And your corrupt lot take 40% of the petrol price as tax and tax on tax.

  5. Tane 5
    16 June 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Petrol tax pays for transport infrastructure. Or are you suggesting people who don’t drive pay to subsidise your road usage? Always trying to dip into other people’s pockets, you righties…

  6. andy 6
    16 June 2008 at 12:46 pm

    And your corrupt lot take 40% of the petrol price as tax and tax on tax.

    How much as a percentage was petrol tax under the Nats? How much would it be if they were govt tomorrow? oops, don’t know cause they know they can’t drop revenue as they have tax cuts to pay for. Where is your policy Gerry?

    Knee-Jerk, and that will solve the problem of the price of petrol. But the good news would be that your rego would go up to $1,500.00 or you would have to pay for Km’s like diesel.

    Awsome you really thought that through…

  7. burt 7
    16 June 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Tane/andy

    RUC works fine for Diesel, would also work fine for Petrol.

    But hey, people don’t mind paying road taxes for their lawn mowers or boats do they…. no – much easier to collect it at a uniform rate from everybody all the time eh.

    I know I know, attributing the costs based on usage is just so failed policies of the past eh.

  8. James Kearney 8
    16 June 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Burt- Road User Charges are only for heavy vehicles. You know, the ones that cause most the damage to our roads.

  9. andy 9
    16 June 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Burt

    I would love to pay RUC for my Km’s. Would Make my 12.5km round trip to work even more cost effective.

    was trying to point out the futility of the argument, does not matter which team is in Govt needs the revenue! You either pay at the pump or the post office.

    The inquiry will be about as effective as the US congress trying to prosecute OPEC…

    Would love to know what Mr Brownlee has to offer?

  10. Chris S 10
    16 June 2008 at 1:14 pm

    James: All diesel vehicles pay road user charges.

  11. burt 11
    16 June 2008 at 1:27 pm

    James Kearney

    So all the stupid people with Diesel cars have been paying RUC for nothing then….

    Sorry – you are wrong, all Diesel vehicles must pay RUC irrespective of their size if they use public roads. RUC is weight/distance based and is worked out using reasonably scientific calculations based on the number of wheels, their configuration and the weight they carry. It’s all about collecting ‘road tax’ proportionate to the damage a vehicle inflicts on the roads.

  12. burt 12
    16 June 2008 at 1:32 pm

    andy

    I have a 24km round trip to work, I use a bicycle – no fuel tax and I still use the roads. Also no ACC levies and probably a higher risk of accidents than a car.

    One size fits all fails again – Who would have guessed that.

    I would also support a change to RUC based taxation of petrol vehicles. Saves paying ‘road tax’ while sitting in a traffic jam.

  13. burt 13
    16 June 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Oh, thanks to all the people who pay petrol tax and RUC for their Diesel vehicles, it’s fun to ride a bike on the road.

    Also thanks to all the people who pay ACC levies on their vehicle registrations, it’s nice to have somebody else covering the risk of riding my bike (free of tax) on the road.

  14. Disengaged 14
    16 June 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Ever since I first heard about the notification system that the Australian’s are using I have been confused as to how it actually lowers prices. If you only have to give 24 hours notice does it really make a difference? I haven’t seen any petrol stations raise their prices twice in one day yet, or do they?

  15. Lew 15
    16 June 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Disengaged: It means people know to fill up today rather than tomorrow, scoring a cheaper deal. Of course, fuel companies will simply build this into their pricing patterns, so I’m also skeptical about the effect it has.

    L

  16. andy 16
    16 June 2008 at 2:20 pm

    burt

    I bike regularly, am loving $2 petrol. We forget that fuel and road taxes are a luxury tax. We have the luxury of choice.

    As you have pointed out if you walk run or cycle you are not taxed, if you choose to drive you pay tax.

    it is quite a simple system then isn’t it.

    also, am quite happy to sudsidise you, just as much as others subsidise me.

  17. andy 17
    16 June 2008 at 2:25 pm

    lew

    the problem i have is that two gas stations next to each other cannot actually compete on price. e.g. gull can’t reduce its price at lunch time to compete with shells price, creates an inflexible less competitive price structure.

  18. Lew 18
    16 June 2008 at 2:32 pm

    andy: Yeah, on paper it could look like regulatory collusion.

    L

  19. T-rex 19
    16 June 2008 at 3:28 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4585645a10.html

    I’d just like to give a warm round of applause to the South Auckland Sikh community for behaving like human beings are supposed to. Let’s put them in charge of the country.

    captcha: ‘worse semi-burlesque’ – There goes the only book to use the term “semi-burlesque”. Ever.

  20. Draco TB 20
    16 June 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Burt:
    Although paying taxes on a per user basis looks good on paper what really happens is that the cost of administering those taxes is more than the amount of tax collected effectively nullifying the purpose of the taxes. If JK wants to cut waste in the government he could start by getting rid of the ‘user pays’ system but I’m sure the righties would get up a howl of protest if he tried that.

    As for diesel not having the RUC built in like petrol: That was a result of the fishing industry pointing out that they used a few million litres of diesel every year but not the roads. This is, IMO, fine as the scale is significant. You getting to use the road subsidized by car/truck drivers is insignificant and just not worth mentioning.

  21. the sprout 21
    16 June 2008 at 6:40 pm

    you can rely on National to not ask any questions about corporate cartels