Road User Charges Bill

I move, That the Road User Charges Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that the committee present its final report on or before 25 May 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).

The bill will reduce compliance costs for transport operators and will ultimately reduce transport costs for our businesses and exporters. The changes before us to the road-user charge system are the most significant since the scheme was introduced in 1978. They form another part of the Government’s regulatory reform agenda to boost business confidence by cutting red tape.

In March 2009 I was presented with the results of the Independent Review of the New Zealand Road User Charging System. The review found many positive aspects to the current system, but it also identified a range of shortcomings. Over the past 18 months, excellent progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the review. Changes already put in place include the requirement to give 6 weeks’ notice of road-user charge increases and the passing of legislation that enables the use of electronic technology as an alternative to mechanical hubodometers and to pay for licences. That technology will remove much of the compliance costs for operators.

One of the most significant changes proposed in the bill will see the removal of the system whereby heavy-vehicle operators nominate a licensed weight for road-user charge purposes. That will be replaced by a system whereby each vehicle will have its own permanent road-user charge weight. That change will greatly simplify administration for industry and for Government agencies and will virtually eliminate weight-based evasion from the road-user charge system.

The road-user charge review also identified limitations of the current time licence system. Under the new legislation, the time licence system will be discontinued. Instead, selected vehicle types will pay a flat annual charge, resulting in a much simpler system.

A major criticism of the current road-user charge system is that it allows too many opportunities for evasion—conservatively estimated by officials at around $30 million a year. Our transport network represents a significant investment for both taxpayers and the government, and I believe that everybody who benefits from this vital asset should pay their fair share towards its upkeep. At present we have a situation whereby honest road users subsidise some who choose to ignore their obligations.

The bill looks to improve compliance with a number of proposals. The proposals are designed to strengthen the integrity of the system by requiring vehicle inspectors to report odometer readings to the New Zealand Transport Agency, introduce more stringent record-keeping requirements for transport operators, and give authorities more effective assessment powers in order to investigate and recover outstanding revenue. In addition to those changes, an updated offences and penalties regime will also make the system fairer for all.

Although the amended road-user charge regulations that allowed for the use of electronic technology were a necessary first step in modernising the road-user charge system, road-user charge legislation needs to be further updated to allow for the ongoing successful integration of the new technology. Under the new system, third-party electronic service providers will manage road-user charge obligations and information on behalf of operators. The providers will also act as representatives of the New Zealand Transport Agency for the purposes of issuing road-user charge licences. As a result, it is important that the providers be monitored and audited under a consistent statutory framework.

Finally, the bill will enable the administration of road-user charge collection to be granted to a designated road-user charge collector. I propose to seek Cabinet approval to make regulations designating the New Zealand Transport Agency as the road-user charge collector. This change will enable the New Zealand Transport Agency to improve its processes and service delivery, including making the design of its systems more streamlined.

The bill is about updating and modernising a system that has been in place now for more than 30 years. The hypothecated revenue system means that all road taxes contribute to the upkeep of our transport system. The road-user charge changes will ensure that all those who use the network pay their fair share towards its upkeep. The changes will also help to meet the Government’s objectives of increasing economic productivity and reducing compliance costs for New Zealand businesses. In closing, I say that the proposed changes will ensure that we have a road-user charge system that will continue to be relevant to New Zealand road users in the years to come. I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora anō tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa, i tēnei pō. We support the Road User Charges Bill being referred to a select committee.

As a brief outline of the history, I say that we were very aware of how incendiary the criticisms were when the then Labour Government, under the leadership of Helen Clark and Dr Michael Cullen, sought to introduce a road-user charge. I have difficulty saying the word “RUC” in case I say the wrong consonant. Now we are giving a description of what might be done to Steven Joyce’s head by members of his own committee, should they continue using a rugby analogy. We will hear from the member Michael Woodhouse as he tries to get answers from the Minister of Transport as to why a dodgy tender process went down for the trains—but that is another matter.

We are aware that the road-user charge is a very controversial area of the transport industry. An independent study was undertaken, and it is actually quite pleasing to see that the Minister has taken up some of the suggestions. For those reasons, we support the bill being referred to a select committee.

We have a number of concerns. Feedback to date suggests that people in smaller firms, people who perhaps are not at the heavy freight side of the industry, may end up shouldering a disproportionately larger proportion of the burden spread across the whole transport industry.

Although we support the bill being referred to a select committee, one area has caused the new spokesman to have a small measure of concern. We knew the bill was floating around somewhere and we thought we would test it. I must confess, I have not rung my occasional confidante and buddy of days gone by, Mr Ken Shirley. However, more consultation could have been mandated by the Minister. There is a suggestion that a document was floating around that simplified the road-user charge system. A host of firms have said they have never seen that document. It was given to a narrow range of economic investors and commercial interests in the transportation—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Rubbish!

OK, maybe they were National Party mates. They would be only in the trucking industry, because National does not like rail, it certainly hates coastal shipping, and it is disinterested in improving the operations of ports. In fact, the Minister who introduced the bill made a point of telling representatives from the ports industry last week that they were on their own and that the global market would determine their future. A greater level of jettisoning of responsibility is quite difficult to imagine.

If the Minister wants to introduce a new revenue-gathering system to the transportation industry, if key firms are complaining that they were not adequately consulted, if the document I have referred to was distributed to a narrow range of people and on the pages of the documents was the subheading “For discussion: not Government policy”, and if it is going to be that broad, then the Minister should provide an opportunity for all the stakeholders to have a say. Some of the stakeholders are those who were particularly excited—or should I say enraged—a few years ago and who organised those very successful, I have to say, truck protests. In fact, a number of my cousins were driving those trucks. Give them an opportunity—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: You were in the cab, too.

Yes, unfortunately they were. I recall them threatening to run over a car I inherited from Steve Maharey for that short and eventful time I was a Minister. But they have seen the light. They have realised that they have now been marginalised by the quality of stewardship shown by the Minister, who is interested in only one thing: building more superfluous motorways and not actually focusing on the cost structure confronting the people who move our goods and services around the country.

I think that the watermark entered into each sheet that said “For discussion: not Government policy” shows that there has been a bit of circuitousness in the development of those ideas. But I am not surprised, because any Government would not want to repeat what we went through.

We look forward to a range of submissions coming to our select committee from the various interests in the transportation industry. I would point out, though, the hypothecation—what a delightful word—that was introduced under the high-quality leadership of Annette King. It enabled the scarce resources collected from the toilers in the transportation industry to be dedicated back to our transportation system.

Although this debate is about charging those who move freight around—in particular, about introducing some equity—I would particularly like to know whether this bill will reduce the need for the commercial vehicle investigation unit, which creates for John Carter and me all sorts of dramas with our local trucking firms up north. However, he is unlikely to have to carry that on, as there are probably not a lot of trucks in Mauke, Rarotonga, Pukapuka, and those other highly important islands that lie at the centre of our geopolitical relevance to the future of the Pacific. I could not think of a better person to take over in Rarotonga, and I look forward to taking many rugby trips with the golden oldies team up there in the future.

But let me come back to the Road User Charges Bill, or RUC, which has only a passing relevance—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: You’re just talking about another ruck.

Well, when that Minister can resume his guard and put on his boots again, we will have a great deal more fondness for him. He has turned his back on the hallowed tradition of parliamentary rugby.

But I will say that the Minister of Transport has made a particularly important point in terms of clamping down on evasion. There will be debate as to whether this bill has a remedy for operators who clock up miles but spend quite a lot of time off the roads—they spend time on forestry roads and private roads—and we will need to hear whether the remedy will work in practice.

Modernising and improving the electronic system will worry the rogues in the industry, because at the point when a warrant of fitness is issued and when the weights and distance travelled are measured, we will no longer rely on the office staff or on the operator. Those matters will be dealt with through new technology, which is hardly likely to be advanced by Minister Joyce, given the debacle he is presiding over in relation to technology improvements in our rohe in provincial New Zealand. But having said that, the boffins in the transportation part of the bureaucracy are convinced that they have a system that will lead to sweet execution and improve the manner within which information is collected and stored. Hopefully, in the future that will lead to an improvement in the kinds of policies we have.

During the select committee process, we will also look forward to hearing about the way in which money is dedicated. There is a bias in terms of the dedication of money towards trophy projects.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I do not want that Minister moving too far away, because the House will collapse again. We have 2 more minutes, and I ask whether he could remain. I am sorry; I did not see the “battery hen”, the Minister of Agriculture, sitting on the frontbench. I am very sorry about that. [Interruption] OK, he is not a hen; I accept that. He is a “Peking duck”—a duck that is peeking out because he never ever makes any ballsy decisions in his portfolio and he hides behind his bureaucracy every single hour of the day.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: You watch out when you get a hiding from Pita Sharples.

It is not my fault that Hekia Parata proved to be a more reasonable, better-looking, and higher-qualified Māori than Tau Henare to come into Cabinet. I do not know why the rest of us should suffer his sense of rejection, his sense of marginalisation. Hekia Parata has a greater—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I’ll have you know I’m the top twitterer.

It is John Key’s problem as to why he chose Hekia Parata, and why Michael Jones or Va’aiga Tuigamala will be the candidate against Phil Twyford and not my whanaunga Tau Henare. That actually has nothing to do with transport, just as Tau Henare’s future has nothing to do with the long-term prospects of Parliament—nothing whatsoever.

Now I will come back to this important bill. We support the bill being referred to a select committee. We look forward to hearing a range of submissions. We will hold our position in relation to whether or not we will support the bill through the entirety of the legislative process. We join with the Minister of Transport and encourage all and sundry to make as many submissions as possible, but let them be of a better quality and of more relevance to the future of the industry than Mr Friedlander’s outgoing outburst was, of all his frequent outbursts. That is why Ken Shirley is providing a great deal of information to members on this side of the House, and he knows that balance is absent on the other side of the House. Kia ora tātou.

We can see that Labour’s transport portfolio is in very safe hands now, is it not? Mr Jones has it. He has a great personality, he is a good guy to get on with, and he will make our job on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee a lot easier. It is good to have Shane Jones on the committee, and we are looking forward to his valuable contribution on this bill and on other bills as we go through the year ahead.

The Road User Charges Bill is a reflection on what happened when Labour was last in Government. Labour rammed through some changes that led to mass protests. The truck protests that the previous speaker, Shane Jones, talked about were a direct result of our having a Government that was not listening and did not engage with the industry. This bill is a reflection of the way in which this Government has engaged and talked with the industry. Those in the industry understand the changes that are coming.

We look forward to hearing the submissions on this bill. No doubt they will be positive and will reflect the positive mood of the industry towards the Government’s programme. Our programme involves road construction like the Waikato Expressway, which is central and integral to the growth of New Zealand, especially the great city of Hamilton.

Minister Joyce needs to be congratulated once again in this House on the way in which he has approached the issues. He has worked with the industry to make things successful, and to make this bill something that everybody feels they can proceed with.

One of the key things in this bill is a change to the definition of vehicle weight. Previously road-user charges have been based on the distance travelled and the weight carried, which could provide some difficulties for operators as to predicting the actual weight of the vehicle. The bill changes the definition of vehicle weight to a fixed road-user charge weight, so that operators do not have to guess in advance how much the weight is. That change will make it a lot simpler and easier for both parties involved.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Run through that again.

For the benefit of the young member over there, who has also joined the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but is the spokesperson on ACC for the Labour Party, I say that it is effectively a move from having to have the—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: When was his last accident?

Yes, when was his last accident? When did he get his driver’s licence? He might have to sit that test before March. He probably does not have a driver’s licence. There was a change to the definition of vehicle weight to make it easier for the parties involved.

The bill also removes the time licence system and modernises the list of vehicles exempted from road-user charges. That is another important change this bill will focus on. The bill improves the regulatory framework for electronic management systems. Once again, this is an example of a Government moving with the times and with the industry. If any members have been in the more modern trucks that we see out on the roads these days, they will have seen that electronic time management is very much involved. This bill fits in well with the industry norms with regard to the technology that is involved in trucks these days.

There will also be a fairer, simpler, and less costly structure in relation to offences and penalties. This is particularly so for light vehicles, because people in that area of the industry have felt that they have been hard-done-by. This change is an attempt to provide a better system for those with light vehicles—who may argue that they have issues with compliance because they are not in a heavy vehicle fleet—in relation to offences and penalties.

Those four changes are the big parts of the Road User Charges Bill. We look forward to the bill’s referral to the select committee and we appreciate having the support of all the parties in this House in referring it to the select committee. We look forward to hearing submissions on it and to working constructively to bring this legislation through this House in the near future. Thank you.

As my colleague Shane Jones has said, Labour will support the referral of the Road User Charges Bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I record my appreciation of the addition of Shane Jones and Chris Hipkins to the select committee.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: That’s not what you said last week.

It is what I said last week, actually. I think it will be very challenging for the chair of our committee, David Bennett, who thinks the Government is not here to make peoples’ lives better. Having listened to his speech, he is apparently here to make better the lives of—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Truckies.

Well, some truckies, but not all. As my colleague Shane Jones has said, Labour will support the referral of the bill to the select committee. We have reservations about some parts of the bill, but we strongly support other parts. I look forward to hearing from submitters, and I hope the concerns that I am about to outline will be addressed in that process.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I thought you had finished.

I am sure that Mr Henare will listen carefully to the submitters who appear before the select committee.

It is very disappointing, once again, to see the same rushed process put on to the select committee. We could be called to meet at any time. What is the hurry? What is the panic? Why is the Government doing this? It is an abuse of the process. Once again this has happened to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This sort of resolution is put forward by the Minister of Transport and sometimes the Minister of Labour. Why is it always the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that is required to meet at any time while the House is sitting, blah-blah-blah? Why is it so important to do that? Quite a number of things in the bill need to be carefully looked at.

I make it clear that Labour supports reform that will improve compliance with, and recovery of, road-user charges. I will talk about that reform a little more later on. We support the establishment of the framework for the electronic management of road-user charges. We know that that is the way of the future. I have seen what is possible with electronic management of the road-user charges, and that is a good thing.

We agree that road-user charges should be simplified and modified but we have some concerns about the changes to the vehicle weight definitions. First of all, there was only limited consultation over those very significant changes, which will have an impact on people in the road freight industry. The consultation on those changes was limited to larger organisations and larger operators. At no point have those changes been fully explained to smaller trucking operators. Exactly what those changes will mean, in the end, is still a mystery to many people in the industry. The changes are being widely discussed throughout the industry—there is no doubt about that—but very few of the operators that we have been speaking to are clear about what it will mean for them. What is the difference between the old system and the new system? Nobody knows exactly how those changes will impact on their business. None of that is clear in the regulatory impact statement, either. There are no comparisons between the old and the new.

This bill changes the system where road-user charges are based on the distance travelled and the weight carried. Currently, operators have to estimate, in advance, the actual gross weight to be carried. Under the proposed changes the usual maximum allowable weight of the vehicle will be decided in advance, and the road-user charges will be charged on that figure. That is supposedly to simplify the charges, and it sounds simple when one hears about it. I think there have been problems around the road-user charges system. The existing truck fleet has been purchased to work within the existing system, so reclassifying the national fleet will have unknown impacts.

Under the present system the first tonne of weight is charged at a much lower rate than the last tonne. The last tonne is charged at a higher rate because the weight at the top end of the scale does the most damage to the roads. Under the new system those charges will have to be set for an average weight in each class. We presume that the Government wants to collect the same amount of road-user charges in each class, but that means that the operators with trucks within that average weight band will have to pay more to cover the lost revenue from heavier trucks at the top end of the scale. Those with heavier trucks will pay less. So the winners will be a minority of operators who carry the heaviest loads and, therefore, pay the largest amount of road-user charges. They will enjoy large windfalls with reduced rates.

Our estimate is that up to 70 percent of all trucks are not loaded to the maximum carrying capacity. They commonly run at about half or two-thirds their potential capacity, simply because the goods being carried are not as heavy as that. For example, how much does a truckload of Pink Batts weigh? All these operators who run trucks at less than capacity will have to cross-subsidise operators who run trucks at maximum weight.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Who wrote this?

Why do those members, who are on the select committee, not listen and take this seriously?

Just how much extra will those operators have to pay? We do not know. The truth is that nowhere in the Road User Charges Bill, or anywhere that I could find, is there a chart that shows the difference in the charges that operators in each band will be expected to pay. Presumably they will be introduced retrospectively under the rules process, but Labour wants to know why this process has not been more transparent.

I move on to talk about the things that we support. We are supportive of the measures to reduce road-user charges evasion. In 2008, just before the election, there were mass protests in the transport industry after the previous Labour Government instituted increases to road-user charges. I say shame on the National Party. It was a completely politically driven protest. Since I have been involved as Opposition spokesperson on transport, I have spoken to many truck operators who have admitted that they put their truck drivers on the road that day. They paid their truck drivers to get out on the road in protest against the Labour Government. What are employees to do? What are owner-drivers to do? If their company says that they want them on the road, will they say no? They might lose their job. They were out protesting because their employers or their contractees told them that would happen.

The interesting thing about that protest is that during the process—from the protest to the implementation—more than $17.5 million of road-user charge licences were pre-purchased at the old rate. That money was lost to the Crown. If the Government was to spend the same amount on our roading network, then that lost revenue had to come from somewhere. The truth is that it comes from ordinary Kiwi motorists. Amid the outrage, the truck convoys, and the media going along for the ride, no one asked Kiwi motorists how they felt about picking up the tab. Labour just wanted the trucking firms to pay their fair share, and we still want to see that.

It would also be nice if they paid the estimated $30 million that has been lost in the collection of road-user charges. Last year I submitted a parliamentary written question to the Minister of Transport, and he replied that 6,478 operators were prosecuted between December 2008 and April 2010 for not paying their road-user charges. The total fines associated with convictions totalled more than $12 million. That figure does not include the fines that were not paid and were outstanding. Labour is really, really pleased that we have a bill that will improve the collection of road-user charges and the enforcement of those charges, and will stop the evasion that has been going on.

However, I say in closing that I am worried, and Labour is concerned, about the trucking companies that do not know about this legislation. We estimate that about 70 percent of trucking firms will end up paying more under this bill. The large companies—the ones with the big trucks—will do well, but the little companies will not do so well. Is it not a bad time to introduce a change like this? Diesel charges have gone up, and all of those operators are being affected by the cost of living. We do not think that this particular bill has been properly researched, so we are looking forward to the select committee process, where we can find out what people are saying. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I acknowledge the new transport spokesperson for Labour, Shane Jones, and also the excellent work that Darien Fenton has done on truck safety in this Parliament.

Members might not know this about me, but growing up in Gisborne I was a boy racer. I am not the typical Greenie who is opposed to every single road, and who hugs trees. I am not sure whether I am the only member in this House who can change a car engine, but I can. So I am a Green who loves roads, and this speech is about why it is important we focus on our roads but do so with a balanced approach. It is great—[Interruption]. The House is so enraptured I cannot hear a word a single person has said, so I will keep on going with my speech.

It is good to be in front of this House discussing the Road User Charges Bill. I will talk a bit about the bill, but more importantly about the agenda. It is not just about the small, mostly common-sense changes that are happening; the big picture is the stuff the Minister is deciding behind closed doors, the stuff that the New Zealand Transport Agency is implementing. That is what I want to talk about.

We have heard a few mentions already tonight about the Road Transport Forum New Zealand; we have heard, in hushed tones, about Ken Shirley. We know they are powerful interests, but I am proud to be standing here as the member from the party that does not accept a cent from the Road Transport Forum. I never have, and I never will. We know how powerful that group is. It mobilised 4,400 cars to shut down some of our biggest cities to get what it wanted. Although I am a supporter of non-violent direct action, I know how powerful and influential a group it is.

I will provide a bit of a context. Although I was a boy racer and I loved burning around in my Mark I red Ford Escort with mag wheels, some of the context of what I am providing to this House is the idea that this House is wasting billions of dollars on uneconomic motorways. That is locking us into a car and truck-dependent future. I mean, where is the balance? For every dollar we are spending in this House on walking, cycling, buses, and trains, we are pouring six bucks into new, unaffordable motorways. For the 85 percent of Kiwis who cycle, we are spending only 10 percent. We are lacking that joined-up thinking. We are talking about roads of national significance; why are we not talking about “corridors of national significance”, which, we believe, are smart transport investments? But that is just not what we are seeing from this Government.

We will support this bill being referred to a select committee because there are some important questions we want to ask. Let us be honest: this bill is pretty non-controversial. However, it is important because what we do with our freight industry in New Zealand will have a huge bearing on our kids’ future. The amount of freight carried by truck in New Zealand is estimated to grow by 75 percent into the mid-2030s, and road-user charges, the main way in which we get revenue, is spent by us. Even older than I am, the road-user charge regulations came in in 1978 when Muldoon was still tramping around this Chamber. We are one of the few countries in the world that still has road-user charges. Many other countries have just moved on. As the Road Transport Forum has pointed out, we are spending $120 million in administration, which the forum says is just wasted.

This bill takes a user-pays approach to our road trucks, which the Greens support when it comes to commercial vehicles. There are a lot of them. There are 580,000 heavy trucks under this road-user charge, which are all diesel vehicles. This bill will not increase or decrease the amount that people are paying, but it will make evasion more difficult. That is a good thing, considering that the charge cost us about $30 million last year.

We have heard an interesting debate on the charging of the maximum weight, and I am still open to the arguments about that. On one side we heard from Darien Fenton that it will penalise some truckies, but on the other side it could act as an incentive for trucks to be fully loaded. That would mean more efficient trucks on our roads, and hopefully fewer trucks and more safety, so I am still open to that argument. The legislation will introduce a framework for electronic payment, which could facilitate more accurate charging. That is good, and could reduce compliance costs.

Where the bill drops the ball, I think, is in going in favour of rewarding fuel efficiency. The Minister of Transport says that he does not want that included in the road-user charge, but we have seen this Government exempt road-user charges from electric vehicles. We need to make sure of—and this is one thing I will be keeping an eagle eye out for in the select committee—the impact that that will have on efficient, compact cars. MINI talked about the current system, which it calls the small car advantage minimalism, or SCAM, approach to small compact cars. We need to have more small, compact, efficient diesel cars. It would be interesting to ask about biofuels. I have a mate who drives around town in a chip-fat fuelled biodiesel car. We need to ask questions about how we will be impacting on that. We do not want to penalise those who are doing a good job in being more efficient on our roads.

The key thing I want to approach in this speech is the question of what we will do with the income from road-user charges. Where will we spend those tens or hundreds of millions of dollars? That is what I will look at, because three big things are making the trucking industry in New Zealand very, very happy. The first is the potential closure of four regional rail lines. The second is the heavy truck—what I call the juggernaut truck—vehicle mass rule change earlier last year. Lastly, there is the hugest investment in our country’s transport history: the roads of national significance.

First of all, I will look at regional rail closures. My home town of Gisborne is facing the closure of the Napier to Gisborne rail line, and three other regional rail routes are facing closure. Closure would be a boon to trucks. In Gisborne and up on the East Coast we are facing a wall of wood from maturing pine plantations. The wood needs to get to port to be exported somehow, but if we close that rail route in the next couple of years, the only option will be to transport it on trucks on the roads. But that would make our roads less safe, make us more oil-dependent, and be worse for the climate. These rail lines are community assets, long-standing assets. In our history, people have actually died building those rail lines. They are also considerable community economic assets for regions like my home region, Gisborne, in going forward into the future.

This Government last year introduced the heavy truck rule for up to 53-tonne, 22-metre trucks. Those trucks do have an impact, and they will have an increasingly huge impact, on our roads, on the road toll, and also on the viability of rail and coastal shipping. Already, heavy trucks are involved in 16 percent of our crashes even though they account for only 4 percent of our fleet, and it is Kiwi motorists and cyclists who will be facing those heavy juggernaut trucks and the risks they entail. Ratepayers are the big losers from this legislation, as they will subsidise the heavy truck industry in terms of bridge maintenance and road maintenance at the same time that this Government has raided the road maintenance budget to fund its grandiose roads of national significance.

Looking at the seven roads of national significance projects, I see an $11 billion gamble from the Minister. It is uneconomic. Many of them have negative benefit-cost ratios, and as we saw from independent earlier estimates, some of them had benefit-cost ratios as low as 0.4. I would get laughed out of a council meeting if I went to a council to propose something with a benefit-cost ratio of 0.4. I do not believe that the Minister is getting away with it. For the amount of money, we are not getting a good return on our investment. I have tabled reports in this House from the OECD that show there are more jobs, more macroeconomic benefits, and twice as many jobs per dollar spent when we invest in public transport, road maintenance, or local roads. We should not be pouring all our money into motorways. I think the key point is that even Don Brash is opposed to some of those roads. As part of the 2025 Taskforce, he said that there was no evidence that projects like Transmission Gully would provide a net benefit to the economy.

The fact is that the way we are going about transport planning in New Zealand is not joined up, it does not look at the climate, it does not value our dependence on oil, and it just promotes a huge growth in the amount of freight carried on our roads. The irony is that the Government could do smarter things like have a joined-up approach and invest in things like our regional rail lines to break those set decades of negative feedback—death cycles, as they are called. If we invested in things like a central business district rail link to get cars off Auckland’s streets, that would benefit motorists and trucking companies more than the uneconomic, unwanted, terrible for the climate roads of national significance, and all the really dumb decisions this Government is making when it comes to transport. Kia ora.

Kia ora anō tātou katoa. I have just a brief contribution to the discussions tonight. Many of the points have already been raised by other members.

In terms of clarification, as we know, the purpose of the Road User Charges Bill is to modernise and simplify the road-user charges system, which is a system that collects money from the users of diesel vehicles. At the moment road-user charges are based on the distance travelled and the weight carried. In order to find out what the impact of the changes might be, I got in contact with a couple of Māori contractors for their opinion, to see how they might be affected by the charges. The group of New Zealanders who it appears will be hit the hardest by this legislation will be truck drivers, loggers, transport service workers, and those involved in the forestry sector. Within that group Māori comprise about 22 percent—a massive 22 percent, if you like—of the total truckie workforce, which is some 6,240 people.

One of the people we got in contact with was named John. He said he drove a 23-tonner, which had a 27-tonne maximum. He said he would be paying for 27 tonnes when he was using only 23 tonnes, and that that was not good. In fact, he was very clear, saying that he did not support the changes, at all. With the cost of fuel going up, he could not afford to be paying more for road-user charges as well. On the other hand I talked to Don, who said that the devil was always in the detail. Because most logging trucks had on-board scales and were loading to the legal limit with every load, a charging in bands rather than a specific tonnage should not have had any effect.

So what is the judgment call—John or Don? Well, at this stage we know that we need to hang out a little bit more for some conclusion to that debate. At this stage we know that this bill is about cleaning up the administration of the antiquated road-user charges system. In some senses the bill is purely an administrative tidy-up. That in itself serves to be pretty consistent with our Māori Party policy—namely, that we will review compliance requirements so that there is no increase in compliance costs.

The Government members’ point of view is that they believe that changes in the bill will result in less road-user charge evasion—that is, less non-payment of charges because evaders will no longer be able to deliberately underestimate the weight they are likely to carry. If members do not know about this, I can tell them that evasion in relation to road-user charges is conservatively estimated to cost about $30 million a year for heavy vehicles alone. The Minister has talked about the need to remove a form of evasion; the removal will give the system greater integrity and reduce revenue leakage, while at the same time it will provide for a fairer and simpler structure in relation to offences and penalties.

From the point of view of those who believe in the genuine progress index, which includes the Māori Party, at least, another issue of the evasion of offences and penalties should be brought into this debate. That is the fact that in the 81 pages of the bill there is not one single mention of the environment, despite this legislation being in effect a tax bill for diesel.

The Māori Party will be supporting this bill at the first reading in the House, because we want to hear the views of more than two submitters, notwithstanding the importance of the views put forward by John and Don that I referred to earlier. We are certainly keen to hear more in relation to the issue of environmental impacts, and, to this end, we look forward to the debate in front of the select committee. The Māori Party is willing to support this bill at its first reading.

I am pleased to be speaking to the first reading of the Road User Charges Bill. The purpose of this bill is to update the road-user charges, or RUC, system. The road-user charges system is well over 30 years old, and it is quite timely that it has undergone review. The current situation is that all users of New Zealand roads contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. Most road users pay levies in the price of their fuel, but others, such as the users of diesel-powered vehicles, pay through road-user charges. All the revenue that is collected from road-user charges goes into the National Land Transport Fund. The road-user charges are administered by the New Zealand Transport Agency, or NZTA, and enforced by the New Zealand Police.

This bill is the outcome of the recommendations of the Independent Review of the New Zealand Road User Charging System. This independent review group was appointed in August 2008 to review New Zealand’s road-user charges system, in response to concerns that had been raised by the road transport industry following road-user charge increases in July 2008. The review considered the Ministry of Transport’s cost-allocation model between road users, and whether the road-user charges system should be replaced by alternative revenue collection methods. It was quite a comprehensive review.

In total, 33 recommendations were made, covering all aspects of the road-user charges system. After due consideration, the Government has accepted the recommendation that the road-user charges system be retained, simplified, and modernised, rather than replaced with a diesel tax, which would impose costs on non-transport users. When the recommendations were released, the Minister announced that it was intended there be an Internet-based road-user charges purchase system, which would reduce compliance costs and the risk of evasion. That has certainly happened in this bill; there are provisions for that, and in this day and age that is quite a timely move. It is long overdue, but we must face it that over 30 years ago, when the original bill became law, the Internet did not exist. So here and now we can make the appropriate changes.

In keeping with the Government’s focus on promoting a road-user charges system that is fair, balanced, and well-managed, just a week prior to the release of the recommendation a law was passed requiring that 6 weeks’ notice of road-user charges increases should be given, so transport operators could plan and budget accordingly. That has happened, and that move has been well received.

The main provisions of this bill include a change in the definition of vehicle weight, removal of the time licence system, modernisation of the list of vehicles exempt from road-user charges, an improved regulatory framework for electronic management systems, and a fairer, simpler, and less costly structure in relation to offences and penalties, particularly for light vehicles. This bill is all about bringing the road-user charges system into modern-day practices. It is about reducing compliance costs for transport operators, and ultimately reducing transport costs for our businesses and exporters, which, in turn, will make it easier for this sector to go about its business. That can only be a good thing for the economy. The changes will make the system easier to understand, and fairer for those who pay road-user charges. I certainly commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I support the Road User Charges Bill, but I have a number of concerns, which I will outline. My main concern is that this Government actually has no real plan, whatsoever, for the transport sector. It has no plan for the transport sector, and I will give members a real live Hawke’s Bay example of exactly what I mean. But before I start, I say to the previous Green speaker, Gareth Hughes, that I also have never accepted any money from the transport sector. However, if it ever wants to offer me money, I am based in Napier. I am only kidding. We will have to declare any donation over $1,500.

There is no plan; there is no strategy for a New Zealand roading sector, or for the New Zealand transport sector. Let me give members an example. In Hawke’s Bay the Labour Government allocated $71 million—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: How much?

—$71 million—for infrastructure development in Hawke’s Bay. That was money collected from Hawke’s Bay residents filling up their tanks at Hawke’s Bay petrol stations and driving on Hawke’s Bay roads. There was $71 million put aside by Labour for Hawke’s Bay, which was to be administered by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council thought that it was such an important step forward that it put the chair of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in charge of its transport strategy. The chair was a man called Alan Dick, a much esteemed gentleman. He had been the Mayor of Napier for three terms, he knew the region like the back of his hand, and he always did what was best for the people of Hawke’s Bay. The strategy that this transport committee came up with was superb. It was really going to improve the infrastructure of Hawke’s Bay.

One of the main reasons that that strategy was so important was that Treasury said in a document that the highest level of economic payback for any dollar spent is that spent in infrastructure. If the Government invested $71 million in Hawke’s Bay infrastructure, the payback would be enormous. We were looking forward to the investment for a number of reasons. First of all, it would have taken trucks off Marine Parade. Secondly, it would have made our port, which is one of the most efficient ports in New Zealand, probably the most efficient port in the country. Thirdly, it would have meant that businesses around the country would have relocated to Hawke’s Bay, because the infrastructure was in place and ready. Fourthly, it would have created jobs in Napier. Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne have 7,000 unemployed people—7,000. This investment would have been brilliant for Hawke’s Bay. It would have created jobs. In fact, if we look at economic theory around what should be done in times of recession, we see that money needs to be spent on infrastructure. We should not give away $14 billion in tax cuts, which will not stimulate the economy at all. Money should be spent on infrastructure. Those men working on the roads are earning money. When they are earning money, they are paying taxes. When they are earning money, they are spending it in the shops in Napier.

I tell members a sad thing. When I wander down the main streets of Napier, I am hugely concerned about the amount of retailers who are suffering. I am worried about the amount of retailers who are suffering in Napier for two reasons. The first is that the wealthy got massive tax cuts and they are saving them—they are retiring debt. The second is that those on the median wage in Napier got an extra $5. That is taken up by inflation in petrol and food costs, running at 10 percent, and the standard costs of living. People are not spending in Napier. But spending $71 million on infrastructure in Napier would have created jobs and economic development—it was what we needed.

The esteemed gentleman Alan Dick, the ex-Mayor of Napier, got a phone call from one Steven Joyce. Alan Dick is a gentleman who has been involved in local body politics at the highest level, and he got a call from the new Minister who said that he wanted him down in his office in 12 hours. Where is the respect? So Alan Dick jumped on a plane, got down there, and Steven Joyce said to him that he had had $71 million raised by the residents of Hawke’s Bay, but now it was gone. Alan Dick asked where it had gone. It had gone to some big pot. And where is the money being spent? Where is this money being spent in Hawke’s Bay? According to the expenditure from the National Land Transport Programme for 2009-12, 22 percent was spent on local roads. These are not State highways; these are local roads. There are criteria for Government spending on local roads: they have to be roads where people die and ones that are really dangerous. But when it comes to infrastructure and creating jobs they do not count, so these roads will not be built in the Hawke’s Bay. I withdraw that; they will be built in the Hawke’s Bay when Labour comes into Government, because we will restore that funding to the people of Hawke’s Bay. The money raised in Hawke’s Bay will go back to the people of Hawke’s Bay, and Hawke’s Bay infrastructure will be where it should be.

We all know that when the provinces do well, New Zealand does well. I would like to ask that Government what it is doing for the provinces. What has that Government done for the people of Napier? What has it done? Nothing. It has taken our $71 million up to Auckland and it is spending it on I do not know what. Nobody in Napier knows where it has gone. The Government should read Keynesian economic theory and look at what Roosevelt did to get America out of depression. It should do what every economy is doing round the world, except ours, to lift people out of depression—create jobs. There are 158,000 unemployed people in this country. Where are the policies to create jobs? I tell members one policy to create jobs: build infrastructure in Napier with the $71 million. But the money has gone. There is no plan for the provinces. And where has that money gone? [Interruption] Are the roads being built in Mr Jones’ area? No; not at all. Where has the money from the provinces gone? What is that Government doing for the people of Hawke’s Bay? What is that Government doing for the people of the provinces of New Zealand? Nothing. No, it is not doing nothing; it increased GST. It has increased the cost of living. It is hard work in the provinces and this Government is doing nothing about it.

As for road-user charges, I know all about road-user charges. When I drive my fire engine around the streets of Napier, I have to pay road-user charges. People say to me that I need a fire engine in Napier to put out the fires lit by the Napier National member of Parliament. They are all over the place. There is no plan, no roading strategy, and no roading plan that anyone can put their hands on and say that that is the way forward—we are not able to do that. However, Labour is supporting this bill to select committee for two reasons. The first is that there has been insufficient consultation across the whole industry, and at least in select committee every person whom this bill affects or who wants to have a say will have the opportunity to do that. This was not done under Mr Joyce’s reign.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: And it wasn’t done by Tau Henare in the takutai moana either.

Not at all. The second reason is if, in fact, it does streamline and make the road-user charge regime easier to follow, then we are all for that. A Labour Government is a Government that supports hard-working New Zealanders. If we can make it easier for hard-working New Zealanders, then we will support it. We always have. Nine years—goodness me! We made this country hum. There was a 3 percent unemployment rate and now it is up to 7 percent. There used to be a joke that the Mayor of Napier under the previous Labour Government knew the name of every unemployed person, because there were only about five of them. Now there are 7,000, but this Government has no plan for the people of the provinces, and the people of Napier are suffering. Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, you know well that the people are suffering under that Government, and it is a disgrace—it is an absolute disgrace. But on that note, I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to everyone who is interested having their say—it is about time.

Sometimes we look forward to people speaking in this House, and I sat here throughout the debate on the Road User Charges Bill, and I looked at Stuart Nash and thought: “I am getting excited. He excites me. He really does. He excites me with his command of the English language and his command of the issues and the problems facing this nation.” Well, what an anticlimax! I paid all that money to watch, and all I got was a repeat, a rehash, of everything that Mr Jones said. I say to Mr Jones that I welcome him to one of the hardest-working select committees in Parliament, other than the Māori Affairs Committee.

The Road User Charges Bill is purely and simply about two things—nothing else. There is no politics in this bill. It is about only two things: simplification and bringing us into the 21st century. That is all it is. If we put those two things together, we do not get a truckload full of pornographic material; we get economic growth. That is what it all about. It is about getting this country moving.

The previous Labour Government was in office for 9 years, and what did it do about the trucking industry? Well, let me tell members what it did. It caused a riot. It caused the trucking industry to march in the cities en masse. In fact, that Government created havoc on our roads. Not one new road was built under that regime. [Interruption] But as a resident of Te Atatū Peninsula—does Mr Twyford know where that is—I want to thank the Minister of Transport for a number of roads that are popping up in my area. That leads to economic growth in Auckland, and if it leads to economic growth in Auckland, then it will lead to economic growth in places like Napier.

I will answer Darien Fenton, who asked what the rush is and what the hurry is. I will tell members what the hurry is, and I will tell them what the rush is. The Labour Party may not have seen it yet, but we are in a bit of a bind economically—we are in a bit of a bind. So that is the rush and that is the hurry. There are no politics in this bill—absolutely none. All it is about is simplification and modernation—modernising the industry. Modernation—that is my word.

💬 Chris Hipkins: What’s modernation?

It is not “moderation”; it is “modernation”.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Where’s the Minister of Education?

There is nothing wrong with that word. I will just add that word to the lexicon of the English language. I have a new word every day.

I turn now to the Green member Gareth Hughes. I have to say that with all respect to him, do members not get the feeling that they are being told off by a 2-year-old? I know he can pull out the engine of a car, and good on him—well done. My diesel truck is in Bowen House. Maybe he could help me to fix it up. I have to say that all the speeches in the House tonight from the Opposition have been nothing but waffle—they have not said anything new.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: As opposed to this one—in direct contrast to this one.

Sorry? I did not think there would be a reply. This bill is all about the modernisation of this industry. It is all about the simplification of this industry. I tell members this as a person who loves to drive his diesel truck all over the nation—a 2.8 Turbo Mitsubishi Challenger, one of the first in New Zealand—1996. It has done 300,000 kilometres. Something that I despise is having to go to the post office and buy road-user charges. I love the idea of going online and picking up the required road-user charge. It makes it a hell of a lot easier. It simplifies it, and here is that word again—modernation.

I am amazed that the Greens and the Labour Party can have their cake, eat it, and then have the gall to get up in this House and moan about the taste. They can cook it, they can have it, they can eat it, and then they moan about the taste. That is the Green Party, and that is the Labour Party—they know that there are no politics in this bill. This bill is about getting the economy moving. It is about moving forward, getting the engine of the New Zealand economy—Auckland—on the move. I cannot wait to hear from the many truckers and business people who will come before the select committee.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: What about Māori on the statutory board? They’ve been told to ruck off!

I tell members in closing that I cannot wait to work with the Hon Shane Jones. I know that he will turn up to every Transport and Industrial Relations Committee meeting we have on this bill. I promise the House that if he does not turn up to even one meeting, then I will come back and tell the House about that member’s commitment to the select committee and about the job that he now has as spokesperson on transport and other matters.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Moderation!

Modernation and simplification.

I will move that all the words in the referral motion after “May 2011” be deleted. The reason I will do that is that we have just heard a very eloquent contribution from Tau Henare on the National side, talking about the importance of all the members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee being present for the very important deliberations on the Road User Charges Bill. I would hate to think that any member of that committee missed out because of the outrageous referral motion that this Government will move on this bill.

That motion gives the committee the power to meet even when the House is sitting, and even when it goes into urgency in order to rush through the foreshore and seabed legislation, which we know is coming up very shortly—even while the House is sitting under urgency to rush through the outrageous Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Bill, which the Government wants to do before the Maori Party completely implodes.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member seems to be diverging way off this particular bill, in terms of references to other bills. I just ask that you bring him back to the focus of the bill.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. This is a first reading speech, so there is a little flexibility here. But I hear what the member says, and I am listening to what is being said.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to speak for a little longer on the reasons why I do not think this bill deserves to have a truncated select committee process that prevents the members of the committee from fully participating in the deliberations on it because they may have to come into the House to talk about the foreshore and seabed legislation, which is no doubt coming up under urgency. I am not surprised that the Māori Party is a little sensitive about that particular matter.

I will pick up on some of the contributions that have been made by other members of the House on this bill, and I will raise some of the issues that I will be asking about in the select committee process, because, having read through the bill, I have a number of questions. I am particularly interested in the usual maximum allowable weight issue, and what that means for vehicles that are regularly loaded to less than their maximum capacity. For example—and this is something that the Minister of Agriculture will take an active interest in—milk tankers are regularly loaded at well below their maximum allowable weight. Does this mean that milk tankers will be charged at their maximum allowable weight, even if they are half empty? That, potentially, will create some issues. I imagine that the people who drive milk tankers will not be particularly happy with the Minister of Agriculture about that, and I would like to see the select committee explore that issue a little further. I think the select committee should explore it further.

One of the other issues with regard to the maximum allowable weight issue is that vehicles are often empty when they are returning to the depot, so what will happen with regard to those vehicles?

The Labour Party supports the measures in this bill that tighten up on road-user charge avoidance. I think we can all be pleased that the Government is taking some action on that. However, I think we could go a bit further in terms of the electronic monitoring of road-user charges. I am not sure whether this bill fully provides for the new technology that could be available to monitor those issues. For example, the feedback that I have received from the trucking companies in my own electorate is that they find that the hub meters can be quite unreliable. Actually, there is global positioning system (GPS) technology now that is pinpoint accurate—down to the very metre—which can record all of a vehicle’s movements. An electronic system may be much harder to fool in order to avoid paying the road-user charges, so it could be much fairer and provide the trucking companies and the operators of trucks with a much more flexible, reasonable, and easy to manage system. An electronic system can operate on a cellphone SIM card or GPS-type system. That can be instant, much, much more accurate than hub meters, and potentially much fairer. That is another issue that I would like to see the select committee explore a little further, and I will be asking some further questions about that.

I am also concerned about the lack of differentiation in this bill and in the existing regime between different types of small diesel vehicles. For example, under this bill a small Volkswagen Golf will be charged at roughly the same rate as Tau Henare’s Mitsubishi Challenger. He is paying attention now; I have woken him up again. His Mitsubishi Challenger will attract roughly the same road-user charges as a Volkswagen Golf. A Volkswagen Golf is much smaller and much lighter on the road, so the rationale for charging the same road-user charges for a Mitsubishi Pajero or Challenger as for a Volkswagen Golf is, I think, pretty weak. If we are moving towards more fuel-efficient vehicles, smaller vehicles, and potentially the greater use of diesel vehicles, then we need to think quite seriously about whether there should be a greater differentiation in the charging regime for smaller diesel vehicles. That is something that should be considered.

I read through some comments from New Zealand Bus on this particular proposal. It argued that public transport should be subject to a different charging regime, and I think that should possibly be considered, or at least we should canvass the arguments in favour or against having a differentiated charging regime for buses and other forms of public transport that operate on the roads and use diesel. Unfortunately this Government seems to have a natural predisposition against encouraging the use of public transport and against supporting public transport. We have seen that through Steven Joyce’s absolute obsession with building more and more motorways, while at the same time trying to choke off various public transport options around the country.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I bet the Green candidate for Botany wished there had been a motorway out east.

What was that?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I bet the Green candidate wished there had been a motorway out east. He missed his nomination.

If we are talking about motorways in Auckland, I would defer to Melissa Lee’s superior knowledge of the motorways in Auckland. After all, when they built that extra motorway through—what was it, Harbourview—whatever it was—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Waterview.

When they built that extra motorway through Waterview, she said all the criminals would travel from South Auckland to west Auckland without having to pass through Mt Albert and that would be absolutely fantastic. The voters of Mt Albert embraced that so much that they delivered to her an even lower result than the previous National candidate managed to obtain at the last general election. But that comment, coming as it did from Maurice Williamson, highlights National’s absolute obsession with having more and more motorways rather than considering alternative forms of transport. That is absolutely relevant to this discussion, because when we are talking about the charging rate for diesel road-user charges, one of the issues that could be considered is a differentiated charging rate for public transport.

But the big question I have here is whether this is the step change that we have been waiting for from the Government. The Government members are just back from the Christmas holiday. They have had a nice long holiday. John Key has been off to Hawaii a couple of times to lie on the beach. Is this what he managed to come up with in that period of time? Will changing the road-user charges regime be the step change that will catch us up with Australia? Is this the step change that will give jobs to the thousands of people who have lost their jobs since National came into Government? Will this will give them jobs? I do not think this will do very much for them at all. This is not a step change. This is routine administrative legislation, which is one of the reasons why we support its referral to the select committee, although we would like to give the select committee the opportunity to consider it properly. We are supporting its referral through to the select committee, but where is the step change? It is still not here. It is certainly not in this legislation.

Finally I will comment briefly again on the select committee process. Given the lack of consultation around the bill that we have in front of us, it is very important that the select committee is given adequate opportunity to do its job thoroughly, and that the members of the select committee can focus on this bill and give it the attention it deserves. I do not think that will happen. I do not think that the referral motion that the Government is to move—completely unnecessarily—to rush this bill through the select committee by giving it the ability to meet even when Parliament is sitting will result in this bill getting the scrutiny that it deserves. It will force members to step out of the select committee to participate in other parliamentary processes such as debates in this House, or it will force members not to participate in debates in the House in order to participate in the select committee process. A good chairperson of a select committee should not need the type of referral motion that the Government is to move. It should be possible for the select committee to meet the deadline that is to be set of May 2011 without having to rush through the process and without having to meet while Parliament is sitting.

To conclude, there are some meaty issues here for the select committee to get into. Maybe they are not as much meaty as they are technical, but they are interesting. But overall the bill is not the step change that we are waiting for from the National Government. I would like to see a really concrete plan to get the economy moving. I do not think that this is anywhere near to being close to that plan. Thank you.

I am very happy to take a quick call at the end of the first reading of the Road User Charges Bill, but before I do, I would very much like to address the rantings of the member Mr Nash about the quality of roading in Napier. It seemed odd to me that he would bag his own town to quite that degree. I spent a few days in Napier very recently and I can assure the House and those listening that the roads in Napier are in very good condition. The only thing that people in that place wanted to talk about was how good the hard-working MP for Napier was for them, although I must say that the member should take up with the regional land transport committee the small issue of the intersection of State Highway 2 and the turn-off to the airport, which seemed to take for ever to get through. Otherwise, I think that Napier is in very fine fettle and a picture of moderation—“modernation”, perhaps.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Modernation—it’s a new word.

It is. It is a further evolution of the nomenclature. One of the abiding memories of the 2008 election for me, particularly as I am not driven to protest publicly, was standing in the Octagon on that very cold July morning with several hundred trucks circling it. The people there were not normally very empathetic with the values of National, but I think that we picked up a great deal of support through that. Members will know that the independent review was actually the result of that protest and that it was put in place by the previous Minister of Transport, Mrs King. I welcome our new member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, Mr Jones, who is a funny guy. He is intelligent and articulate, and certainly funny in relation to his criticism that the present Minister of Transport has somehow lacked consultation in this process. That is ironic in the extreme.

I want to pick up on Darien Fenton’s comments about using the averages, which potentially favour larger operators. She then conflicted her own position by pointing out that many of those trucks are travelling around only half full, and therefore the larger the truck, the bigger the penalty it will receive for travelling around half full. So I think that the averaging process will remove any of the anomalies that presently exist in the charging regime.

I also want to add my voice to the support for those strategies that will eliminate the evasion of up to $32 million worth of road user charges. I am sure we will hear more about that in the select committee. I support the bill.

Bill read a first time.

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the Road User Charges Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 25 May 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have an amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins to omit the words after “May 2011”.