Road User Charges Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. First I acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Transport. He did something unusual this evening: he stood up and spoke, and much of what he said proved to be lucid. I only hope that that lucidity helps him as he seeks to justify why this inordinately large amount of money is being wasted on an unnecessary extension of the expressway in his area, but that is another matter. That is another matter. No doubt the good burghers and voters of that part of Aotearoa are turning red by the minute, and will see red as he fails to provide a suitable explanation. He is a Minister who has a practical level of experience, having come, a wee bit like me, from an agricultural background—although it has been a long time since the udder of the cow provided me with my direct income.

I want to talk about Part 3, and I want to direct our attention to ensuring we enable people who feel they are being hard done by in the transport industry to enjoy a suitable opportunity when they are pinged to have—figuratively—their day in court. The system will work in a fashion that is not unlike the Inland Revenue Department. The regulator, the road-user charges collector—either the Minister or, through delegated authority, the agency—will be required to pursue the laggards and those characters. I hope they are not to be found in Kaitāia and other such pleasant climes enjoyed by Kelvin Davis and, occasionally but distantly, by me. Those people, from time to time, will find that they have not followed the rules and regulations accurately.

These things happen, because under this Government the rules, regulations, and red tape have just grown like Topsy. I actually imagined that the transport sector would enjoy a purge, a clean out, but not a single bureaucratic prune has been administered by this Government in relation to simplifying the regulatory thicket that afflicts the transport sector. As I said last night, if one is to bring in new regulations—and let us face it, a lot of this stuff will be administered by dint of regulation—then strip two, three, four, and administer a handsome dosage of Epsom salts to the bureaucratic body. Those of us who are the politicians will come and go, but the administrators of the system, by dint of their professional status and the fact that there always has to be a regulator, will continue. The point I am making is that when an operator receives an assessment, let us be very, very loud in insisting that that operator have a decent opportunity to put their side of the story.

I hope that the regulator has the balance between collecting revenue for the Government’s accounts—which are going further and further in the wrong direction, so revenue is needed—and showing a pragmatic and even-handed approach. Many of the operators will own these vehicles, and I think we will see a lot of these vehicles getting smaller, not larger. It is a disappointment that despite the arrival of these road-user charges and the new regime, etc., the larger vehicles are not actually on our roads, because Steven Joyce, the Minister of Transport, has starved local government of improving the roads and the bridges that actually have to bear the weight of these large vehicles. But that too is another issue for the voters. The voters will be busy on 26 November as they find new and fresh ways to punish. It will not be David Bennett, because, unfortunately, he will not register in this debate. I see Sue Moroney and a host of other very talented people circling their wagons around his declining fortunes in the Waikato.

For firms that are operating—and I think of the firms in the provinces, where the margins are slight—the system needs to cut them some slack. Cutting them some slack does not mean degrading the quality of the freight vehicles, of the fleet, but showing when we administer the system—we being the stewards of the State—that we can be pragmatic. It is possible under this particular part for the road-user charges collector to cancel a penalty. Well, that is very unlikely, because from time to time—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The Hon Shane Jones.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There is nothing like quality to continue to persist and carry the waka forward.

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: Yes, certainly, let’s have some of it.

That was an unfortunate remark from the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. In another world, she was very appealing, but now her own people quail because she sided with the mining industry. They live in fear that what passes for their environment is about to be turned into a great oil slick. But I am prepared to back her as the new Minister of Education. There are hand gestures—I see hand gestures coming from her. That is private; she should keep it to herself.

I need to come back to the bill at hand. There is a faint connection. After all, these freight fleet vehicles require oil of some description to continue. Of course, we will hear from the Greens that there will be no more oil. We will hear from the Greens shortly an unfortunate observation that, somehow, we will have a fleet that will no longer be able to operate. It is good that they are provocative, and it is good that they make those contributions, but unfortunately it is the investors—it is the owners of the fleet, at the end of the day—who need to make the changes. I hope that this bill enables them to do that when they are struggling through the bureaucratic thicket that comprises this legislation.

There are a host of other provisions we must make note of in the Committee stage. After all, we will be supporting this bill, but such is the hallmark of the Committee stage in this House, which is part of our constitutional process. Thousands of New Zealanders will by this time be watching the Rugby World Cup, or whatever is happening tonight, which is a very, very disappointing feature of their night-time viewing as they are missing the opportunity to learn about having to pay more levies, and being further penalised if they are in the position of being unfortunate enough to own a trucking business. It will be further weighed down, if we are not careful, by excessive levels of red tape.

It is all very good to modernise electronic technology, but one should choose the right type of technology. There is a host of options, and we need to be confident that the Government is putting substance into the rhetoric of productivity, innovation, and a variety of other things and actually improving the options for the owners of the fleet to upgrade.

I come back to the importance of keeping vehicle inspection records, etc., which are mentioned in this part. If we have the right kind of technology—the application of electronic technology—then the owners of the firms and the owners of the vehicles will not be cursed or blighted by maintaining mountains of paperwork, etc., in relation to the inspection of records and other sources of information that may, unfortunately, be used in the future to hammer them. I send not a siren call but a warning from those of us who have had experience in the private sector and who know that it is not all beer and skittles to own a transport firm. Not only are the compliance costs quite onerous but also one has to find skilled staff and maintain their wages at a competitive level. An element of parity has to be maintained so that we do not lose everyone to Australia. Unfortunately, that is happening and not much that the Government has done passes muster in relation to stopping people from disappearing in that area.

Part 3 provides for rights of appeal. Those rights are very important, because during the implementation and the transition from the current regime to the new system there will be hiccups.

💬 Darien Fenton: There will be.

There most certainly will be hiccups. They are happening as we speak.

💬 Darien Fenton: Maybe a truckers strike.

I am not entirely sure whether the trucking fraternity is a little bit more French in their approach, and they might visit their displeasure on the current Government. The only thing French about truck drivers that I know of does not bear repeating in this House, so we will just taihoa and I might find another ethnic analogy in that regard.

As I said, there is an option for appeals and reviews, but I sound a warning about anyone thinking that the option contained in clause 64 is usable. One would have to have an enormous amount at stake before one would want to go to the High Court to appeal on a matter of law. When one is confronted with an egregious level of wrongdoing by the State, one can go one of two ways. One could go to a politician, to the Minister, and work up through the bureaucracy, or, if that fails, one could hire a Queen’s Counsel and trot off to the High Court. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to speak on Part 3 of the Road User Charges Bill, the topic of which is the assessment of unpaid road-user charges. It is absolutely right and correct that the Crown should have a method for assessing what it deems to be unpaid road-user charges. It is a belief on our side of the Chamber that everybody should get a fair go and a fair chance, and that they should pay their fair share, and the same goes for people and firms who are liable to pay road-user charges.

We have to have a method for assessing those road-user charges. Part 3 also deals with the associated penalties for non-payment and the avenues through which those who are, I suppose, charged with non-payment can appeal their being assessed for unpaid road-user charges.

It is excellent to see the Government putting through legislation that tries to tidy up the issue of unpaid road-user charges, because before the last election there was a massive protest by trucking firms, led by former National MP Tony Friedlander, against the Labour Government. The Labour Government was trying to ensure that people who were liable for road-user charges did not try to game the system, especially when the road-user charges were changed. The charges were changed without notice, to ensure that no one shirked their responsibility for paying road-user charges.

There was an outcry. In fact, the truckers did exactly what Shane Jones suggested they did, and they clogged up a number of our roads. I remember John Banks being in huge support of them. He was very excited about them expressing their right to protest and the right to free enterprise by clogging up the main streets of a number of our cities—and absolutely; I support anybody’s right to protest. That protest was about the method that was used to ensure that road-user charges were paid.

I think it is right and proper that we ensure that unpaid road-user charges can be assessed, as allowed for in Part 3. The provisions are not ones that Labour has any concerns with. There were some minor adjustments made at the select committee, particularly on what information could be collected from electronic system providers.

I know that some concern was expressed by some submitters that the power to collect information through an electronic system could be used to collect information that perhaps had less to do with road-user charges and more to do with some other aspects of safe driving. I know that, for instance, information on the distance travelled over a certain period of time could be collected, and it was suggested that that might be used to determine whether vehicles had been speeding during that time. There was also concern about a number of other bits of information that could be collected.

But this bill is about collecting information for the purposes of assessing what road-user charges are liable to be paid. That is specifically what it is about. To be honest, I do not know why a trucking operator who was operating within all the laws they could be assessed on, using that other information, would be concerned about it being gathered. If they are operating in a lawful way and a safe manner on the road, they will have nothing to fear from that information being collected. But I did note the concerns that were raised.

The bill states: “any distance recorder information reported to the RUC collector by a vehicle inspector following an inspection of the RUC vehicle under section 58(1) or provided by an enforcement officer;”.

There are a couple of points that I would like to make. First of all, members heard Mr Jones say that if people had doubt about an assessment, there are a number of routes to take, and one of those routes is to go to see their local MP. I suggest to everyone out there who has an issue with their assessment that they book an appointment with Mr Jones and go to see him. He will no doubt organise a solution—or did I hear wrongly? Mr Jones also mentioned that people could get a Queen’s Counsel. But a fine for an individual is only $3,000, and I think Queen’s Counsel charge about $1,000 an hour, so I do not know about that course of action. But it was not a bad legal point.

There are a couple of questions I would like to ask. They are pretty standard, I suppose. I am looking at clauses 45 and 46. Clause 45 is with regard to the removal and retention of—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are not on clause 45; we are on Part 3.

Yes, OK, well, the same applies. The same applies, because what we are talking about here is the—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Similar issues.

They are similar issues. It is about what is reasonable. I notice that if someone has reasonable cause to assume that an offence has been committed, then they may take action. The reasonable person test is one of the very first tests one learns in Legal Systems 101. What does the reasonable person expect? And how is that reasonable test met? Often in law—the bush lawyers over on the other side will not tell us; there are no lawyers on that side. Simon Bridges would tell us. Mind you, Simon Bridges may get it wrong, because he was the first to admit that he had won only about half his cases.

Talking of lawyers, goodness me, I very much enjoyed Simon Power’s valedictory speech.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: It was a very good speech.

It was a very good speech. He is a very hard-working Minister. I do not know whether I am the only one, but I thought there were a couple of digs at a lot of his colleagues. He is a hard-working Minister—

💬 Hon Members: No, you’re the only one.

OK, there were maybe one or two digs.

The reasonable person test is often one that is left to the courts to determine. It is left to the courts to determine. Therefore, it opens up a gap. Whenever I see the words “reasonable person” or “reasonable grounds”, I often wonder whether that leaves a little bit of a hole in the system for someone to challenge in court. Because these bills go from one part to the other and they all have to be interlinked, I suppose what this comes down to when I look at penalties is that someone may well challenge the imposition of a penalty because they think that an inspector has not acted in a reasonable manner. I cannot think of grounds, off the top of my head.

I have a fire engine. It has a monitor on it, and I pay my road-user charges. I pay my road-user charges before they expire. They are not very cheap. They are not very cheap, with the price of diesel these days, which under this Government is more expensive than petrol was a couple of years ago. I am astounded at how much the prices have increased, but anyway that is a discussion for another day about the cost of living, I suppose.

I will talk about the imposition of penalties in Part 3. We come to clause 54, “RUC collector may cancel penalty”. I am wondering whether the road-user charges collector may cancel a penalty because they are challenged around that reasonable grounds test by someone who has been pulled up under this law. There are a number of reasons why a road-user charges collector may cancel a penalty. Mr Jones has talked about those; Mr Lees-Galloway has as well. Basically, if the road-user charges collector thinks that it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case, he may cancel the whole lot or a part of it, or refund it. When I read clause 54 I think it is actually not 100 percent clear under which circumstances they may do that.

💬 Hon Member: Not really; I think that needs to be explained.

The road-user charges collector might think “Is it a mate?”, “Is it worth a dozen beers?”, or “I know that guy. He works really hard. I think I’m going to cancel that penalty.” and might say “Just pay a little bit; that’ll be fine.” It is not as clear as a lot of laws can be. I am not saying it is bad law, at all. I am not saying it is bad law, at all, and I am not saying we disagree with it; it is just slightly unclear—

I think that was a very, very useful, positive, and helpful contribution from my colleague Stuart Nash. Actually, I am very, very disappointed that the outgoing chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett—never to be returned after 26 November—has not bothered to take a call. We spent quite a lot of time in the select committee on Part 3.

Labour supports most of this part, albeit with the questions that have been raised by my colleagues. The first question is why the compliance with road-user charges needs to be improved. I welcome the fact that the Government is trying to address the fact that we have road-user charges evasion, which is conservatively estimated at around $30 million a year $30 million a year for heavy vehicles alone, let alone any other vehicles. What that means is that the honest people, the honest players, the people who are trying to do business and do it in an honest way in this industry, are subsidising those who evade payment. The Government is not able to collect that revenue to invest back into the transport system.

We support Part 3, which strengthens the whole system around collecting road-user charges. There was quite a lot of suspicion on the select committee about nominated weights versus gross vehicle weights, and there was suspicion about electronic systems, but there was particularly suspicion about the ability in Part 3 of the regulator to get information and enforce road-user charges. Quite a lot of suspicion came through from the industry, and I am a bit sympathetic with that; with a National Government in power I would be suspicious, as well. However, Part 3 proposes some changes, and I think the select committee took those changes on board.

We can see from the report that there are some recommendations from the select committee to amend Part 3. There is a suggestion from the select committee of an amendment to clause 57(b) around the information that is obtained from the road-user charges collector, how that information is retained, and how it is used. There was quite a lot of unease from the industry about the ability of the Government to collect information on road-user charges that, it may use for other purposes. There was a lot of suspicion, actually. I am pleased that the select committee listened to that and has recommended an amendment that the road-user charges collector may retain only information taken from the vehicle management system regarding the distance travelled by the vehicle. The other information cannot be used for other purposes.

The other debate was on how far the information went back and how extended the records were. There was quite a lot of discussion and debate on that. So, in terms of the select committee report, we support the amendments to clause 59 to remove any retrospective effect. There we go. There is that phrase “retrospective effect”, and have we not been talking about that quite a lot recently? Will we not be talking about it tomorrow? Have we not had acceptance from this Parliament, and actually from the Government, that retrospective effects are not a good thing? They are not a good thing. So there is an amendment to clause 59 recommended by the select committee to remove that retrospective effect and reduce the time that records need to be retained for the purpose of assessing a person’s road-user charges payment obligations. There was concern, as I said, from submitters, and the select committee discussed that. There was discussion with the officials about the scale of the records to be kept and the time for which they should be retained.

We have also recommended an amendment to, clause 60 that requires the road-user charges collectors to provide a receipt for records or other information removed from an operator—

I came down to the Chamber not intending to speak on the Road User Charges Bill, but I have been listening in my office to the debate and thought that if the opportunity arose, I would just ask a few questions. We are on Part 3 and I was somewhat surprised, when listening in my office to the debate, because it seems that it is quite a complex bill. From a Government that has stood on a mandate and promises—empty as they may be—of reducing compliance and reducing regulations, this is bizarre legislation. Anyone who reads through this—

💬 Hon David Carter: Is the member going to vote for it?

In fact, the farmers, I say to the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, will be absolutely flabbergasted to read this bill. There might be some who are watching this debate on Parliament TV and there may be some who are on the internet. They will not be able to download the bill, because it is quite thick and they will not have broadband that is capable of it, but, anyway, the farmers who were told that this Government would come in and reduce compliance costs will be shocked.

Just picking up Part 3, I see that clause 48(1) states that the road-user charges collector may issue an assessment for unpaid road user charges “If the RUC collector forms the opinion …”, which is obviously somewhat subjective, and in subclause (2) there are the qualifications to forming the opinion. But none the less we have handed to an individual a quite significant power, which we hope is never abused, but there is an ability to step in here and make assessments.

There will be many farmers up and down the country, I suggest to Mr Carter, who are running 3-tonne trucks, 5-tonne trucks, or bigger ones perhaps. They use them from time to time, and on occasions they may forget that the road-user charges they have purchased have expired, or they may have gone a few kilometres over and they are in the middle of the harvest season, and for some reason they have not been able to get to the post office. Maybe there is not an agency close by that is open. They may be forced inadvertently to go over their road-user charges limit.

The penalties in the bill are quite harsh. Let us be quite honest about this. This complex legislation, designed to streamline the system, we are told—and we are certainly supporting it on the basis of streamlining the system—is none the less a whole lot of regulation of bureaucracy and compliance costs. Although we as a Government were criticised for being the nanny State and for imposing unnecessary costs on industry, this Government is no better.

Let us get that on the record. This Government is no better at all, because the reality is that we do need some regulations and we do need to have some guidance through legislation. There are double standards, I guess. There is a word beginning with “h” that I am not allowed to use; yes, I am allowed to use it. The hypocrisy of the situation is that a Government that claimed it would do no more in terms of regulations and compliance costs is having to do exactly the same things that the Labour Government had to do when it was in office and was unfairly criticised for. The difference is that the Labour Opposition, when it understands the need for sensible regulation and guidance and sound legislation, will support the Government from time to time, and this is one of those occasions. But let us not kid ourselves that this legislation will not impose greater compliance costs, greater obligations, and a higher level of scrutiny on anyone using a heavy vehicle in this country. The National Government will say that is necessary. When we were in office, of course, National members said that it was unnecessary.

I can see all the members over there are shaking their heads; well, they should be, anyway, because they understand that. But here we have legislation that has been considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, altered and improved drastically, and it is designed to ensure that we have a fair system of road-user charges whereby owners of heavier vehicles pay more. I understand that some vehicle owners will pay considerably more, and that, for them, will be an additional cost on their business that has been brought in by the National Government. The National Government is imposing greater costs on business. That is the reality of the situation that this legislation will lead to. Let us not kid ourselves otherwise.

I move, That the question be now put.