Road User Charges Bill

The question is that Part 4, clauses 67B to 89, and schedules 2 and 3 stand part.

Part 4 is all about enforcement and other matters. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 79, which will enable regulations on road-user charges to be specified. An important point here is that this clause empowers the making of regulations that set the road-user charges rates. The regulations must be published in the Gazette at least 6 weeks before the rates come into force. Also, there are administration regulations that need to be set for road-user charges licences; the payment of road-user charges; refunds of road-user charges; regulating the use of information held by electronic service providers; regulating the fitting, maintenance, and replacement of distance recorders; regulating the management of information downloaded and retained by the road-user charges collector for the vehicle management system; and setting infringement fees.

Finally, yesterday I alluded to the exemption in Supplementary Order Paper 287. The paragraph, which has several subparagraphs, contains the regulation-making powers for the new exemption mechanism for light road-user charges vehicles—that is, vehicles that are under 3.5 tonnes and that the owner-operator chooses to operate off the road. Officials will have to consult, as they will do on those other parts I have mentioned, very widely in terms of exemption. The Ministry of Transport officials advise me that they will be consulting not only through their website but also the stakeholders who have shown an interest through the select committee process: obviously the agriculture and transport sector, the likes of the Automobile Association and the Motor Trade Association, and also the electronic service providers. So wide consultation is due to occur very soon on the important regulations.

Part 4 of the Road User Charges Bill is where we get into some disagreement with the Government, and there are also concerns from those in the industry who made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, particularly around the issue of regulations—regulations that will set the bands of the costs for road-user charges. It gets back to that argument we have been putting all the way through this debate about taxation without representation. It is a fundamental part of our Parliament that there should not be imposition of tax, which is essentially what road-user charges are, without representation. It should not go through our parliamentary system through a regulations process. So I think what we will find is that, apart from the calculation of gross vehicle rates in the new calculation and the nominated weights, this is the part of the bill that the industry most objects to, and I do not blame it, actually.

What we heard through the select committee was that there was a weak consultation process more than 2 years ago, which arose after the truckies’ strike before the last election, which people have alluded to, that I must say was quite politically motivated. Annette King, the then Minister of Transport, handled it extremely well and set up a committee to look at the whole issue of road-user charges. So part of this bill does come back from the report-back of that committee. It was very, very interesting for me, after all of that politically charged issue before the last election, to have a bill from this Government that now proposes to impose new road-user charges on truckies but without proper parliamentary scrutiny. There was no one who came to the select committee, apart from National’s friends, who was convinced about this process. They said: “How can we support this bill when we have no idea what the costs will be? We have no idea, other than that it is some sort of broad band calculation that was done 2 years ago. We do not know what the costs will be for our industry. We want to have a say in that.”

I think that is fair enough, because we are talking here about big business and also about small business, which I thought National supported. This change will have a significant impact on them and I think they have a right to a genuine say on that, through a select committee process. But as we know, with a regulations process there is a way of dodging around that. So what the industry is calling for is genuine parliamentary scrutiny on these charges. They are saying they do not want these charges imposed through regulation. They want them in the bill, as they have been in the past. They want this Government to honour the commitments its members made when they lined up when the truckies went rolling past in the strike in 2008, which as I say was politically motivated—

💬 Hon David Carter: They didn’t like that Government.

No, well, they do not like this Government either, actually. I have to tell that member that they do not like this Government. They are let down by this Government; they have been let down by this Government. They are saying that this part of the bill is one of the things they are completely opposed to. It is appalling that there will be charges imposed on this industry and the people who actually have to do the work and run their businesses will have very little say. At the end of the day, there will not be proper parliamentary scrutiny.

These charges should be in the bill; they should not be done through the process of regulations that are proposed by the bill. Actually I think there will be quite a few protests when this bill goes through. I certainly know that the truckies are organising themselves not only around the calculation of nominated weights versus gross weights but also about the fact that they will have charges imposed on them when they do not get to have a proper say on it.

So that is the major objection we have to Part 4. This is why, when we came to select committee, we reserved our position on this. We reserved our position on this and we will vote against Part 4. There are good things in this bill—

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 4 of the Road User Charges Bill. This part of the bill sets out the infringements that can be imposed on anyone who transgresses in terms of the new regime for road-user charges. I am looking at clause 67B where, in the case of an individual, it is a fine of $15,000 or more, and in the case of a body corporate, it is in the area of $75,000 or more. In terms of whatever fine is imposed upon a person or a body corporate, the accuracy and the fairness of the regime will be paramount.

I guess, in terms of that, we have some reservations, especially given that part of the evidence that can be used, which we saw in Part 3, is the electronic monitoring system that can be used to track road-user charges, especially when last month that electronic system essentially packed up. We think that, maybe, in terms of the law and the practicality of the bill as it stands now, there may be some way to go, and we may be slightly ahead of ourselves in terms of being able to have an accurate measure of how some of these road-user charges will be calculated in terms of the infringement fines in Part 4 that may be imposed upon some people.

In terms of that electronic management system, last month vehicle owners were not able to renew their registrations or update their road-user charges or change of ownership details at New Zealand Post shops, so some serious questions need to be asked about the reliability of that system in terms of being able to use that as evidence to put infringement notices upon a company or individual. This goes back to the fairness and accuracy of the new system, moving from gross weights to nominated weights. There are some major concerns from some people and some companies within the industry as to whether the accuracy will actually be accurate. Instead of being accurate and fair, the provisions within this bill are basically another muddle through to make sure that we can catch everyone.

I have an honest question for the Associate Minister of Transport, who I understand is leaving the chair at the moment, about the level of evasion that occurs within the industry—the percentage of just how much of a problem there is at the moment.

I turn to an issue that my colleague Darien Fenton was talking about in terms of setting out the levels of road-user charges, and the fact that that will no longer have any public scrutiny but will now be done by regulation. As my colleague said, this breaks with the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. There is major concern on this side of the Chamber that there will be no scrutiny of that. I believe that in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, in terms of the final numbers being available for scrutiny to make sure that the bill could proceed, I understand that they were not available and that the actual charges will be set by officials at some later date. That is what my colleague Darien Fenton was getting to: how can we scrutinise this part of the bill in relation to the setting of the levels of road-user charges when, in fact, we do not know what they are? Those are two major concerns, around infringement and the fact that these new charges will be set by regulations, which we have issue with in Part 4.

Going back to my original point about infringement fines of $15,000 and $75,000, I do not think we will have any major problem about that. But, again, I just reiterate the fact that we need to have an accurate measure of the evasion within the industry, because if we do not have that we may be fixing a problem that does not actually exist. In that respect, we ask whether there was actually a problem that needed to be fixed in a manner that will massively increase the amount of road-user charges that some of our truckers will have to pay. In terms of that, there is serious concern within the industry, and those concerned made their voices heard in the select committee. I have glanced over a number of the submissions made at the select committee, and there is real concern about the level of road-user charges that some companies will have to pay.

I will make a little extra contribution particularly about clause 81 of the Road User Charges Bill. But before I do that, there have been some almost inaudible interjections from David Bennett about making sure we read the bill, and our putting up members who were not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Well, David Bennett was on the select committee, and he has not taken a call. Mike Woodhouse was on the select committee, and he has not made a contribution either. Jackie Blue was on the select committee, and she has not made a contribution either. I would have thought, given that this part of the bill was one of the more controversial areas where submitters had quite a bit to say on it, it would be good to hear from the Government. It would be good to hear from Government members about why they think these provisions are so good, and why they are an improvement. I commend the Minister Nathan Guy for taking a couple of calls on the bill so far, but if Government members are going to chip in so much whilst Opposition members are on their feet, it would be nice if they could take a call and explain their position themselves.

The principal concern that submitters had about the fact that so many of these provisions and regulations can be made under Order in Council is related to their ability to plan ahead. If regulations can be changed with regard to road-user charges vehicle types, road-user charges weight bands, road-user charges licences, the display of road-user charges licences, and payments and electronic system providers—all of which potentially have significant cost to trucking firms and transport firms—then those affected want to have some certainty around what those costs will be. The concern of submitters was that if these regulations are being made by Order in Council, rather than any changes being made through legislation, then things could change quickly and without an awful lot of notice, and that would ultimately have an effect on their bottom line. It just makes it difficult to do business. I would have thought a National-led Government would have sought every possible avenue to make it easier to do business—that is their mantra, anyway.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: A Labour Government wouldn’t—is that what you’re saying?

Well, actually, Mike—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Are you saying a Labour Government wouldn’t do that?

Well, what I am trying to say is that that is the rhetoric we hear from the National Government, but then we see in legislation like this that the facts do not necessarily back up the rhetoric. One would think that a Government that prides itself on being so business-friendly would do everything it could to make it easier to do business and to make it easier to plan. On this side of the Chamber we share those concerns, and we are not convinced that using the Order in Council process is the right way to set some of these regulations—for instance, in respect of clause 81(n), “Electronic system providers”, which states: “regulating the collection, storage, use, or disclosure of information relating to road user charges that is held by an electronic system provider in addition to the provisions specified in this Act:”. This goes back to what I was talking about in the last part, about some of the concerns that many of the submitters had about what information would be collected, what that information would be used for, and their fear, I suppose, that the goalposts could be shifted rather quickly by the Government. The consultation processes would not be robust enough to give them an opportunity to have their say in any changes that might occur.

The same goes with payment methods: “prescribing the methods of payment of road user charges, including different methods of payment for different types or forms of licence:”. That could have a significant impact on how trucking firms do their business, what systems they have to have in place, maybe what information technology systems they have to have in place, and what payment systems they have to have in place. Again, it could be done with significant haste, without the full legislative process, and could see them having to change their business operation rather drastically. So we think that the track record on consultation is not good, and that firms have every right to be concerned about which changes might occur.

I move, That the question be now put.

Sitting down here and reading through a bit more of this Road User Charges Bill I am again scratching my head. Part 4, as the Associate Minister of Transport pointed out and tried to explain, relates to enforcement and other matters, and I am going through it and looking at the provisions relating to search warrants. Search warrants was a very emotive issue when it was raised a few years ago by farmers in proposals that were originally on carbon tax and then on emissions trading, as I understand it, around the ability of people to come in and search farms, I think. The Minister in the chair, David Carter, could maybe take a call and explain what the emotion was about. I think it was related to the principle of the police being able to come in and search someone’s private property for things that were related to legal matters but were maybe not of such import that they could get a warrant to bust into a person’s home.

This is one such situation, dare I suggest, because clause 72(2) says that a warrant will be given “even though the offence is not punishable by imprisonment.” Many people in New Zealand think that search warrants are justified if the potential offence is a serious one—that is, where the police have to bust into a property to get evidence for something like serious drug offending, fraud, or major crimes such as murder and serious sexual offences, all of those things. But what are we talking about here? Road-user charges. The Minister might explain why the police should have a warrant—and quite a complex piece of drafting here relating to search warrants—for offences relating to road-user charges.

I have to say off the top of my head that reading through some of this complexity begs the question of why we do not just have a tax on diesel and be done with it—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—and then not have people trying to avoid it. Well, it does beg the question. I am not sure whether it has been considered by the Government. I think it was considered by us and we rejected it. But if we have to end up with legislation like this—highly complex and quite a burden on anyone driving a diesel vehicle—to make sure that we get our road-user charges, then it begs the question of whether there is a simpler process.

The members over there are feeling quite uneasy because they know that they preached on the hustings at the last election—they will not be able to do it this time—that they would slash Government bureaucracy and they would slash the costs of compliance for businesses, and they have done nothing. In fact, in the second to last day of Parliament of National’s first and last term in Government it has passed legislation here relating to the payment of road-user charges, which, quite frankly, will bamboozle most people using diesel vehicles in this country. It does beg the question that I go back to of whether there is a better, simpler way of doing this.

I go back to the part that we are referring to here. There is another question relating to when a warrant is carried out and a person knowingly discloses information acquired during the inspection or the search. So if the police get a search warrant and bust into a farmhouse to get some information because they think that the farmer might be getting up in the morning to drive his truck down the road, it might be just over the limit, and he may not have paid road-user charges, so he has knowingly gone out there and offended, and the farmer’s wife is there and discloses some information—knowingly discloses it, because she tells the police—she is liable to a fine not exceeding $25,000.

There may be an explanation that the Minister in the chair can get up and tell the Committee, but dare I suggest that this part is so complex and has so many provisions in it that this compliance legislation—

I move, That the question be now put.

Mr O’Connor, the previous speaker on the Road User Charges Bill, brings up a very good point, and I would like to reiterate it a little bit more. He was talking about Part 4, “Enforcement and other matters”, and particularly clause 73, “Offence relating to disclosing information acquired during inspection of records or search”. Clause 73(1) says: “A person commits an offence if the person, except in the performance of the person’s duties, knowingly discloses any information acquired during—(a) an inspection of records …” or an authorised search.

There are two things here that strike me. First of all, the fine for an individual is $25,000. That is a lot of money; of that there is no doubt. For a corporate, it is $100,000. But to take Mr O’Connor’s point a step further, I would have thought that a clause like this may in fact stop people from coming forward and saying: “Shivers! Look, OK, I admit I have done wrong here”—

💬 Darien Fenton: Shivers!

—shivers—“I have committed an offence under this Act. I am really sorry. Let me cough up, pay the charges, and let us get on with it.” With that sort of regime, there is a bit of scope, and we talked about it in Part 2, I think it was, where the road-user charges inspector had the ability to waive the fee. But what it is saying here is that if a person knowingly discloses information during the course of an authorised search or an inspection, then he or she is liable for a fine of $25,000, and I would have thought that that is a very good incentive to actually keep quiet—zip up, shut up. I would have thought that having this provision in place would discourage people from owning up.

There are a couple of other points I would like to make. Clause 71 lays out a defence for a person caught avoiding these road-user charges. I agree with subclauses (1) and (2), but subclause (3) is quite interesting. It says: “It is a defence in proceedings for an offence of operating a RUC vehicle without a properly working distance recorder … if a defendant proves that—… (c) a properly working distance recorder was fitted to the RUC vehicle, or the distance recorder fitted to the RUC vehicle was repaired, as soon as practicable after the commission of an alleged offence.” Again, “as soon as practicable” is one of these very subjective tests that is hard to measure.

I am wondering whether the Associate Minister of Transport will be answering these questions, because I can see he is busy reading about Auckland manufacturing and that it is probably slowing down. Many of us who work in the provinces and the rural sector know that these trucks are on the road 24/7. The drivers, of course, change, but these trucks—

💬 Darien Fenton: They work long hours.

Yes, the truck drivers work long hours, but these trucks are a piece of machinery and people have to get a return on their investment. So what does “as soon as practicable” mean? I suspect that those words may end up being defined by the court if there is a fine of $25,000 for an individual or $100,000 for a corporation. If a logging truck is coming out of Wairoa and Napier Road, it is going 24/7, so is “as soon as practicable” the next time the driver stops for petrol, or the Sunday after the offence is committed, or is it the 20th of the month when people stop to pay their bills? I am not sure what “as soon as practicable” means in that context. I am sure that smart lawyers will probably be able to wheedle their way through that.

My other point relates to clause 72, “Power to issue search warrant in respect of alleged offence”. That is pretty wide. It relates to when an offence has been committed, and that provision makes sense. It relates to when an offence is suspected to have been committed. If there is good suspicion, then a warrant will be issued. I understand that. But it also relates to when an offence “is believed to be intended to be committed.” So road-user charges collectors could get a search warrant if they believe that an offence is intended to be committed.

That is a pretty wide definition, I would have thought. I would say that it puts a lot of pressure on a defendant, and it is a wide scope for any collectors of road-user charges. All they have to say is: “I believe that an offence is intended to be committed.”, and if asked: “How can you prove that, Mr RUC Inspector?”, they need only say: “I believe that an offence is intended to be committed, because I saw him driving and I thought that the truck had been on the road too many times, and the driver could not have stopped because it was not practically possible for him to have done this.”

I move, That the question be now put.