Road User Charges Bill

Tēnā tātou, Mr Chairperson Tisch. You are moving at a trot, and, given the connection that is enjoyed by yourself and a host of others with that pedigree stock, I should not be surprised. I draw our attention, in clause 1, to “the Road User Charges Act 2010”. For the sake of the large numbers of Kiwis who have wondered what on earth we have been talking about, as a consequence of the Government promoting this legislation being thunderously silent and being unwilling to explain what is behind the name of this Act, I say that behind the title lies, unfortunately, creeping red tape. This could have been changed, but I draw our attention to “the Road User Charges Act” and remind us that the income derived as a consequence of this bill—that is, from those users on our roads, and in particular the owners of fleets of heavy-freight vehicles, or, if we were in the UK, lorries—[Interruption] It does actually remind me of some of the pronunciation on the other side of the Chamber; it is not Māori but “Morries”. But it is one of those terms of the English language that fortunately did not make a full transition to the Land of the Long White Cloud, so we tend to regard them as heavy vehicles or trucks.

But the title reminds us that it is important that as the revenue is collected and paid to the New Zealand Transport Agency—and the agency is responsible for allocating this revenue to meet the costs not only of capital development but of the maintenance of our roading infrastructure—I remain hopeful that the current Minister and the board of the agency will see fit to allocate a proportion of the road-user charges gathered under the new regime to the transport system beyond heavy-freight vehicles. I have no doubt that over time we will hear an announcement of that nature from the current Minister. I have no doubt that the current Minister will show that the road-user charge moneys—the levy that is collected, perhaps more electronically, as a consequence of the passage of this bill—will no longer be confined to roads and bridges.

It is unfortunate that I use the word “bridge”, because vast numbers of our bridges have been starved and are in an anaemic fiscal state as a consequence of the funding priorities, yet the funds are being taken from the users of the heavy vehicle fleet. It is about time that these funds were deployed in such a way that all modes of the transport system can be supported. I am confident that we will have an announcement from the Minister that he will head in exactly that direction. I imagine that that is the only place where the Minister will be able to find—that is, in road-user charges and related moneys—funds to meet the costs of the debt. That man—or the Minister; I must not personalise this and say “man” or “woman”, because it is the position of the Minister; it is just unfortunate that it is occupied by that unworthy character. However, such are the vagaries of the National Government that it has promoted him above my friends—and they are my friends—on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I see a great opportunity for Mr David Bennett. He does share certain similarities with the current Minister, even if it is only in the anatomy, starting with the top of the head, but I think there is a great opportunity for him to be promoted. Unfortunately, that power does not lie with this side of the Chamber. It does, however, lie with the voters, and, hopefully, down in his neck of the woods they will see great virtue in the candidates on this side of the Chamber. They are already causing him to sweat. They are causing him to expire—well, I will not say expire, but perspire—and it is quite a sight to behold when someone follicly challenged like him perspires, but that is another matter.

I want to come back to the fact that without a doubt the current Minister will be showing New Zealanders how easy it has been—or will be, for him—to dip into the New Zealand Transport Agency fund and use it to meet the costs that he has imposed upon himself by taking this very parsimonious approach. Without a doubt the current Minister will be sort of accessing the hypothecated fund, which derives a lot of the underlying revenue from road-user charges, registration charges, and petrol tax. Only one of those three things is really covered by this bill—that is, road-user charges. I am quite confident that we will see an announcement come from the Minister that these road-user charges revenues will be dedicated to meeting the Crown’s costs associated with the loan required to upgrade the rail transport system in Tāmaki-makau-rau/Auckland. I am predicting that not with my usual unerring accuracy, but I am making a political prediction.

When this takes place, he will have demonstrated that the funds being taken from the heavy trucking vehicle fleet are being deployed and used for another category of transport. That is not necessarily a bad or a good thing, but it is a disappointment that the Minister has not risen, in the context of the Road User Charges Act, and elaborated on or shared that with the Committee. But it will happen in the usual circuitous fashion. It will happen without a suitable level of debate, as is one of the problems with this bill, and will happen in the circuitous and somewhat furtive manner in which regulations will be brought into the legislative sphere, imposing under the Road User Charges Act another level of red tape and another level of burden.

It is a problem that the Act does not fully capture what will happen here. People who own firms will be used as a consequence of this legislation. They will not find the task of owning a trucking firm or a transport firm made any easier, they will not find that the transition is blight-free, and they will not find that modernisation and electronic technology, which ought to be the hallmark and foundation influence of this legislation, will actually come to pass. So the term “user” will have both a negative and a positive connotation.

But it is important we bear in mind that these funds were originally dedicated for bridges, roads, and vehicles. They were not dedicated for purposes beyond that. I look forward to hearing the Minister of Transport demonstrate why he is justified in dipping into those funds to meet the costs—and I predict it will be the interest-related costs—of the $500 million that has been imposed on the transport division of the super-city, Auckland. That did not happen in Wellington, so Wellington was treated differently, and, given that I have such esteemed colleagues from Wellington, I imagine that it reflects their advocacy. But given the disdain with which senior Ministers of the current Government have treated Aucklanders, it does not surprise me. It does not surprise me that the Minister of Transport, having failed to dislodge Mayor Brown, and having demonstrated that he shows nothing but belligerence, that he shows nothing but hostility, and that on occasions he even deploys my fellow Northlander, a fellow member of the Golden Oldies rugby team, Mr McCully, to show bellicosity, anger, and a level of militarism whereby they declared martial law over the Viaduct—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Let me come back. Let me move away from the Viaduct Basin and let me come back to the title of the Road User Charges Bill.

I remind everyone that the funds associated with this regime are meant to be dedicated to the maintenance and capital development of our bridges, our roading system, and our associated assets. I predict that these funds will be broadened and used in ways that may not be unenlightened, but that ought to be the subject of a public policy debate. Their use ought to be the subject of a statutory disclosure. This man, Steven Joyce, has demonstrated that disclosure is not something that is in his political lexicon, as we learnt through his association with MediaWorks, etc. But the Government has made its decision, and it does not seem to bother the Minister at all, so let us see what the voters feel about that. But I predict that the moneys gathered and revenue levied will be used for rail purposes.

Can I say in my opening comments about the title of this bill how disappointed I am with the outgoing chair and other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who sat and listened to submissions from the industry on the Road User Charges Bill, yet have said nothing in this debate. I think they have demonstrated their contempt for the industry by not making any contribution. I would have thought that in the last stages of the debate on this bill, on the title, at least we could have a contribution from David Bennett. But, of course, we all know that his parliamentary career is a bit limited, and he certainly will not be the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We know that there will be issues after the election.

💬 David Bennett: Me and the Mad Butcher; we’ll get you!

Now the member has woken up.

I want to address the issue of the title, because clause 1 says: “This Act is the Road User Charges Act 2010.” I ask the Minister in the chair, the Acting Minister for Economic Development—I know he is looking at his magazine, reading stuff, and not really paying attention—whether that is intentional or whether he has not quite caught up with the fact that it is now 2011. It is not 2010 any more; it is now 2011.

💬 David Bennett: Darien Fenton lost 1 percent of the Labour Party vote.

The member can have his joke, but we will talk about that after the election. I have a serious question for the Minister in the chair, and he is not answering. I would like him to take a call. Is it 2011 or is it 2010? I do not hear the “ex-chair” of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee pay any attention to—

💬 Hon Member: Say something useful.

That is right. The chair does not even know it is 2011. He has not even worked out that there is an election this year. He is still living in the past, as this bill shows—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Road User Charges Bill and no progress on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.