Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. The bill will amend the Road User Charges Act 2012 and the Land Transport Act 1998. The Road User Charges Act 2012 provides for the regulation and administration of the collection of road-user charges for the use of roads and road wear caused by vehicles subject to road-user charges, or RUC. The Land Transport Act 1998 provides for a range of functions relating to land transport including the registration and licensing of vehicles. The main purpose of this bill is to address an anomaly for some road-user charge vehicle owners who are required to purchase road-user charges for their vehicle, but are unable to do so because their vehicle is not registered and not legally required to be. Its secondary purpose is to enable annual charges in lieu of road-user charges to be collected through registration and licensing processes for vehicles exempt from road-user charges. The bill also makes other minor changes to the Road User Charges Act 2012.

Unregistered road-user charge vehicles that are exempt from registration, are not required to be registered, or are operated under a trade plate in an unregistered state are subject to road-user charges, unless they belong to a class of vehicle that makes them specifically exempt. However, it is not possible to issue road-user charge licences to these vehicles, because road-user charge licences are linked to a vehicle’s registration number. These kinds of unregistered vehicles make only limited use of roads and it is not cost-effective to try to collect road-user charges for them. The Road User Charges Act 2012 will be amended to allow regulations that exempt unregistered vehicles from road-user charges.

Vehicles are exempt from road-user charges primarily because it is uneconomic to collect road-user charges for these vehicles. Most of the vehicles that are exempt from road-user charges do very little travel on roads. However, some exempt vehicles such as fast tractors do a sufficient amount of travel on roads to cause road wear, so it is fair that the owners of these vehicles should make a contribution towards the cost that they impose. This bill allows for the collection of an annual charge in lieu of road-user charges for these kinds of vehicles. By doing so it allows for the fair and practical application of road-user charges where collecting them through the normal process would be impractical and uneconomic. This bill also amends the Road User Charges Act 2012 to add offence provisions where light vehicles conditionally exempted from road-user charges are operated in breach of those conditions.

Finally, the bill contains amendments of a technical nature, which support the policy aims behind road-user charges and rationalise enforcement activity. These clarify that a person who has entered into an arrangement to pay overdue fees by instalment will not be subject to additional penalties, allow the road-user charges collector to set a licence fee for one-off vehicles that are not covered by prescribed road-user charges types, and make minor amendments that allow the effective functioning of the road-user charges system. In closing, the proposed changes allow for the fair and practical application of road-user charges in a range of unusual circumstances. This is a great bill, and I commend it to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had this a few times before and there has been a change of Ministers on occasion. The question is that this Minister did not move the bill on behalf of another Minister; does that mean that the bill is now in his name? There has been no indication to us that that is the case.

No, that is not the case at all.

It is a pleasure to speak this evening on the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. Here we are at the first reading—just to make sure all members are clear about this—which comes before the select committee phase. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I am looking forward to getting the opportunity to consider this legislation.

💬 Darien Fenton: No, you’re not—how could you be?

I am—I am. I am looking forward to this, Darien Fenton, because I am sick and tired of the employment legislation that we are considering at the moment. I am enjoying the submissions that we are getting from various submitters telling us what an appalling piece of legislation that is, and how it is going to depress wages and how it is going to make workers more vulnerable, but, I have to say, it is a pretty depressing situation all round. That is why—you are quite right, Mr Assistant Speaker—I want to come back to this bill and that is why I am looking forward to the opportunity to consider this piece of legislation, which is somewhat more innocuous than that awful piece of employment legislation.

It is appropriate that Simon Bridges read the first reading of this bill. We are not entirely sure whether it means it is now in Simon Bridges’ name. If it is now in Simon Bridges’ name, that would be even more appropriate. The reason for that is that this is essentially a piece of legislation to tidy up mistakes made in the last road-user charges legislation that this Government passed. Of course, the reason why it is appropriate that Simon Bridges is in charge of this legislation is that when he passed the Crown Minerals Amendment Act, just 6 weeks later we were back in the House considering a raft of amendments because that Minister could not pass the legislation without stuffing it up and getting it all wrong. So, again, here we are, tidying up legislation that the Government got wrong the first time round.

💬 Darien Fenton: Yes, what a waste of time.

It is a waste of time. I think the public would be far more appreciative if the Government could just do its homework and get its legislation right the first time round.

The other thing, of course, that we are tidying up here is not one but two inquiries, or two reports, that the Regulations Review Committee had to carry out into the regulations that were made by the Governor-General as a result of that initial piece of legislation. Of course, some of those regulations ended up being disallowed and then some of them were reinstated by the Minister. The Regulations Review Committee carried out another inquiry and produced another report, and finally the Government has got round to doing what the Regulations Review Committee suggested, which was to put these changes into legislation. My colleague the Hon Maryan Street, who is the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, will go into that in more detail later on this evening.

What does the bill do? Well, essentially it does four things. It provides for a new regulation-making power to exempt from road-user charges vehicles that are not required to be registered; it allows for a new annual charge in the place of road-user charges for some vehicles that are exempt from road-user charges; it creates new offence provisions in relation to exemptions granted under section 40 of the Road User Charges Act; and, it contains seven “minor technical amendments”.

So what does each of those things do? Well, it is interesting, actually, because what they do is allow for some vehicles that are used for the most part by farmers to be exempt from road-user charges, and the reason, which is a fair reason, is that for the most part these vehicles are used off-road. They are used on the farm, but sometimes they need to go along the road, up the road to the next lot of paddocks, and back on to the farm again. The amount of time that they actually spend on the road is really quite insignificant, and there is very little need to be collecting road-user charges. But because the law was not drafted properly in the first place, in many instances those vehicles are actually in breach of the current law. It seems unusual for the National Party to put its farmers—its supporting farmers—at risk, but it is true that that is what it did. That is what it did, and now it has had to come back and tidy this up.

So, in general, unregistered vehicles are not allowed to be used on the road, but this, of course, does not apply to vehicles that are exempt from registration or are not required to be registered under the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What jobs are up for discussion? I betcha Mallard’s going, after today’s performance—what a grump.

—Tau Henare—or to unregistered vehicles operated under trade plates.

Under the Road User Charges Act, unregistered road-user charges vehicles are subject to road-user charges unless they belong to a class of vehicle that is defined as being exempt under the Road User Charges Act. It is not possible to issue road-user charge distance licences for unregistered road-user charge vehicles because distance licences are issued against a vehicle’s registration number. Operators of unregistered road-user charge vehicles cannot be compliant—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What are you going to do for the Māoris?

—cannot be compliant, Tau Henare—with the Road User Charges Act when travelling on roads. So the Government has basically made criminals out of every farmer in the country, and now it has had to come back and tidy it up. There is a new annual charge involved here. For those vehicles that do spend a bit more time on the road, there is a very sensible provision to allow for an annual fee, which they can pay in lieu of the road-user charges that they would ordinarily pay.

It seems interesting to me that this legislation is being passed to ensure that a small group of people do not have to pay their road-user charges and they do not have to pay into the National Land Transport Fund, when the last piece of legislation the Government passed that related to the National Land Transport Fund actually put up road-user charges, through fuel excise tax, for every single New Zealander. This is a Government that says it wants to cut taxes—and sure, it cuts taxes for a few. It cut income tax for the top 10 percent, and it is cutting road-user charges for a handful of farmers, but it puts taxes up for everybody else—everybody else who drives their car, drives their kids to school, drives to work. All those people have to pay more—have to pay more—under this Government, when the farmers get to pay less. That is what this Government means when it says it is cutting taxes. It is cutting taxes for its mates and it is putting taxes up for everybody else. That is what National means when it says it is going to cut taxes.

This is a fairly technical amendment. It is designed to do one thing, really, and one thing only: tidy up the mistakes that National made the first time round. So we on the Labour side of the House are quite happy to help the Government tidy up its mistakes. We are quite happy to help the Government tidy up its mistakes. We will see this bill go to the select committee. I look forward to the raft of submissions that will come in on this bill—probably slightly fewer than we have had on the Employment Relations Act amendments that we are considering right now. But in the interests of helping this Government tidy up its mistakes, Labour will support this bill going to the select committee.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. Is it not a pleasure to see a new member like Iain Lees-Galloway try to do a 10-minute speech? He tried to do 10 minutes, could not stick to the bill, and had to go on about other things. He could not stick to the bill. He is the silent partner of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He sits there meekly day after day, followed by unionists either side of him, not allowed to say a word. He sits on that committee and does not say a word.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: They wouldn’t let the King’s boy speak?

No, exactly—silver spoon. But he is going in. He is best mates with another silver spoon, Mr Herne Bay 1984. Those two together are going to be the new team for the Labour Party—Herne Bay and Palmerston North. I will look forward to seeing that happening.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look, a point of order is heard in silence.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Members are to be referred to by their names or by their electorates, and that member knows that he is breaching that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, I have had to rule on this earlier today. There is Speakers’ ruling 28/1: members will refer to members by their names.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, Iain Lees-Galloway is going to be the spokesperson, we can see, from the Labour Party on this bill.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It’s Iain Lees-Galloway.

Pardon? What did you say?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Iain Lees-Galloway. He went to King’s. He’s got two names.

Oh, that is right. That is right. He probably needs three names if he is going with David Cunliffe. Then you have got “Tricky Trevor” there. He is going to be there as well.

This bill is important. It is good to finish this bill off. If the members there want to have a fight, let them go for it outside. This bill is in the best interests of the New Zealand transport sector. It is important when you see a Government that is actually doing something in transport and building things like the Waikato Expressway. Louise Upston and I are very proud of the Government’s achievements in the Waikato, unlike what Labour did for our region. This is actually part of that process where we are continuing to work on these rules to make sure we get the best things and the best approach for the New Zealand transport sector.

This bill will pass, and it is good to see the Labour Party supporting it. We look forward to the New Zealand First Party supporting it as well. There are no conspiracies involved, so the New Zealand First Party has got no reason to vote against it. The Green Party members should also be voting for it, but I am sure that they will bring in their magical electric trains so that they cannot vote for it in the end. Thank you. I look forward to this bill passing.

How long was that speech?

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Two minutes.

Two minutes? OK, 2 minutes from the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s quite a long one for Bennett.

It is quite a long one, really. I think he needs to be really careful about showing his commitment to what he said was a very important bill in this House, the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. The truth about this bill is that it would not be in the House if the National Government had not stuffed it up in the first place. That is the truth about the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. That is the truth, and I agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway who said that it is entirely appropriate that the Minister Simon Bridges was introducing this first reading on behalf of Gerry Brownlee—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He didn’t say that, though.

No, I know he did not say that, and that is a problem too, actually. That is a problem. He introduced it—this is not a man known for attention to detail. This is not a man known for attention to detail. This is a Minister who has already had to come back to the House on several bills and make corrections and drive through changes at the last possible minute.

What happened with this bill was that this was a very, very controversial bill at the time that it went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Not even.

Well, Tau Henare was not there. It was a controversial bill, and, in fact, there were a number of transport providers who were very, very upset about what the Government was doing. There was even a little bit of a campaign online, as I recall. What happened with the bill was that the Government was given advice by its friends in the trucking industry and it ignored it. It ignored it. It was given advice by its friends in the agriculture industry and it ignored that advice as well. So what happened? The bill got referred to the Regulations Review Committee, and my colleague Maryan Street will talk with great erudition about exactly what happened at the Regulations Review Committee. But the truth is that it would never have been necessary for this bill to go to the Regulations Review Committee and come back as yet another bill on road-user charges if the Government, if the Minister, if the Associate Minister, and if the National Party members had done their jobs properly in the first place.

I will talk just briefly about what the purpose of the bill is. It proposes to amend the Road User Charges Act, and we have, as I said, quite recently in this House, actually, passed a bill about road-user charges. I want to divert just for a minute to remind the House that, actually, going back, Labour was very supportive of measures to reduce road-user charges evasion. Going right back to 2008, remember, there was a huge mass protest from the truckies, and the then Minister of Transport, Annette King, was involved in that, and then the transport industry after we actually introduced road-user charges or increases. It was used as a political tool by the National Party.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What year was that?

That was 2008, but we do not forget that. We do not forget that. And I was very pleased when the Road User Charges Bill came into Parliament to see that, actually, the truckies were just as annoyed with the National Government. In fact, there were online petitions and other things. They were just as annoyed with the National Government, apart from its friends in the Road Transport Forum, which does not represent its members and does not listen to what they are saying.

But we on this side of the House were the instigators. We were the people who supported road-user charges and we also supported this bill, the original Road User Charges Amendment Bill brought forward by this National Government. We supported that, too, even though we had concerns and we were supporting the people who were concerned about it at the time. As I said, what happened was that the Government did not listen. So here we are in urgency, wasting our time on doing a bill that will actually exempt fast tractors. That is what this bill is going to do. It is going to exempt fast tractors—that is, tractors operated over 40 kilometres per hour on the road—from road-user charges and subject them to an annual charge. I just find that really interesting that the select committee and the Ministers could not get the definition of a fast tractor right at the time. Actually, a fast tractor, according to the regulatory impact statement glossary, is “a tractor that is operated over 40 kilometres per hour on road (as opposed to being capable of speeds in excess of 40 kilometres per hour).” That is what a fast tractor is. And “For the purposes of the RUC system, a tractor is defined as being a motor vehicle designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, for traction and powering implements.” So that is the substance of this bill. That is what this bill is about. This bill is about fast tractors as opposed to slow tractors.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: They’re a menace.

They are a menace? You think they are a menace? Fast tractors are a menace? But, anyway, that is the purpose of the bill, and this bill will amend the Act to provide for fast tractors.

I am really looking forward to the select committee process, and maybe we will have a demonstration at the select committee of a fast tractor compared with a slow one.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: The steps of Parliament.

Oh, a tractor coming up the steps of Parliament—that is right. We could have that as well. In fact, it might be a tractor coming up the steps of Parliament opposing this bill, actually opposing the National Government. That would be very interesting.

Apparently, there are seven minor technical amendments to the Road User Charges Act that will improve operation of the road-user charges system. What I do know about this bill and the original bill is that there is still a residue of resentment about this from trucking operators. They still do not believe that the original Road User Charges Amendment Bill, which this Government brought in, was fair. They are still not convinced by it, and I think it is a demonstration of the fact that the Government did not do its job properly in the first place. It is a demonstration by having to have this bill back in Parliament. According to the explanatory note, “Most aspects of the new system are working well, but there is a need to correct some minor anomalies with the RUC Act that affect a small number of vehicles and their owners.” Why could we not do the job in the select committee of correcting some minor anomalies with the Road User Charges Act that affect a small number of vehicles and their owners? Why could that work not be done? As I say, it is due to a lack of attention to detail from this Government and from the new Minister Simon Bridges, who has picked up from and is following his elders, his more senior Ministers. He is following their tradition of not doing the job properly, of not paying attention to detail, of not listening to people, of just being lazy, and of sitting in select committees and taking the advice of people, instead of listening to the people on the ground, just as he is doing with the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, actually—just as he is doing with that, just as David Bennett is doing, too, and just as the other members on the select committee are doing.

Actually, we do not need this work in the select committee. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is very, very busy. It has 15,000 submissions to take note of on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. It also has the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. It has major health and safety legislation in front of it. We do not need this. This did not need to happen—this did not need to happen. If only the Ministers and the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had done their jobs properly, we would not be rushing through in urgency the first reading of the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill, which is going to be dealing with fast tractors. Thank you.

I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. The Green Party sees no reason to oppose the bill at this time. It is pretty minor. I am looking at the regulatory impact statement now. One of the two key proposals in this bill, which has already been explained by other members in the House tonight, is to exempt fast tractors from road-user charges and subject them to an annual charge instead. The other major proposal in this bill is to exempt all unregistered vehicles from road-user charges—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! I am sorry. I would actually like to hear what the member is saying.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying, the other major proposal in this bill is to exempt all unregistered vehicles from road-user charges and instead apply an annual charge. There are six other proposals, which are supposedly going to improve the functioning of the road-user charges system. They are minor in nature and impact, and there is very limited information available, so it was difficult for the officials to provide a very thorough analysis in the regulatory impact statement.

I think it is worth saying that although the Green Party has no reason to oppose this bill, it is a bit of a missed opportunity to get much better outcomes from the entire road-user charges system. It is my understanding that there are highly, highly efficient light diesel vehicles, which are currently probably paying far more than their fair share with the changes that were introduced by this Government to the road-user charges system, and really, the entire vehicle licensing, registration, road-user charges, and petrol tax systems—all of these systems that we have for raising revenue—are also an opportunity to use economic instruments to clean up our fleet and to get more efficient and safer vehicles on the road. That opportunity has been missed.

So here we are after 11 p.m. on a Wednesday night, debating this minor change, which is primarily going to benefit a few farmers. That is fine—I mean, they do not use the road so much with their fast tractors. I suppose that it is entirely fair, but it does say something about the priorities of this Government that it is not taking the opportunity with the transport portfolio to reduce the transport costs and the burden on households and businesses in New Zealand, which is probably a major drag on our economic development at this point in time.

It has been about 6 or 7 years since we have seen any increase in vehicle kilometres travelled on our roads, so households and businesses are not travelling as much—well, they are not travelling more, even though there are more people; the population has increased—and that is because oil prices have been high. That has impacted on economic development. So here is an opportunity to reduce the burden of transport costs, and that is going to get more economically efficient outcomes for the country. Yet the National Government is apparently completely unaware of the fact that New Zealanders are having to spend three or four times more than the Government just to use the infrastructure that is being provided by their tax money.

I think it is important to explain this. I am not sure that everyone in the House is aware of this. Of course, road-user charges contribute to the National Land Transport Fund, as do petrol taxes. Petrol taxes, by the way, have increased significantly in the past 5 years. Their contribution to the National Land Transport Fund has increased 92 percent since 2007-08. The light road-user charges’ contribution to the National Land Transport Fund has increased 37 percent, so by much less. The heavy road-user charges’ contribution to the National Land Transport Fund increased by only 20 percent.

So the changes that the National Government introduced to the road-user charges system did not result in a commensurate increase in the amount that truck drivers and heavy vehicle commercial users were paying for the roads, compared with your average Kiwi family. Kiwi families are having to pay much more, and yet the infrastructure being provided by the Government—75 percent of the budget for new infrastructure—is going on just a few State highways that primarily benefit freight and actually accommodate only about 4 percent of daily vehicle trips. Surely that is not a logical allocation of resources, and it is certainly not the best way to get better economic outcomes from our transport investment.

As I was saying before, the National Land Transport Fund—which is now contributed to much more by petrol taxes paid by average Kiwi households and partially funded by road-user charges paid by heavy vehicles and light diesel vehicles—is about $3 billion a year. About $3 billion a year is spent by central government on transport infrastructure. It is not true that roads are entirely paid for by road users, because there is another $1 billion that is spent on transport infrastructure that comes from your rates. Local government contributes about $1 billion to transport infrastructure. All of that comes from property owners, ratepayers, and even renters, because renters pay rates through their rent.

So we have got $1 billion, a quarter of the transport infrastructure cost, paid for by rates, not by road users. We have got another $3 billion that is paid for by road users in some way, but not in a direct way—not in the way that you pay a toll to use a road the vast majority of the time. Even when one does pay to use a toll road, like, for example, at the Northern Gateway, the amount raised by that toll does not even cover the cost of collection, or it barely covers the cost of collection. So it does not contribute to the building of the infrastructure.

Anyway, the Government is taking $4 billion off ratepayers and taxpayers and spending it on transport infrastructure, the vast majority of which is roads, and a huge proportion of which are a few new State highways that have terrible business cases and that carry only 4 percent of daily vehicle trips, yet Kiwi households and businesses have to spend four times more than this just to use that infrastructure. Last year we spent $8 billion importing oil. We are not importing any more than we did 5 years ago, but we are spending twice as much on it. We spent $8 billion.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: We need to drill more.

I would have thought that the Minister of Energy and Resources would know that we do not use the oil produced offshore in New Zealand in our cars and trucks. We do not even have the capacity to refine it. Even if we did have a big find off the shore of New Zealand, the Minister should know that that would not affect the amount that New Zealanders pay at the pump because we pay the international price of oil. So we are going to be paying the same amount for oil, whether or not it is produced here and whether or not it is spilt and destroys our shores. It is not going to benefit Kiwi households. But, of course, the Minister would not know something like that. Why would he know that? The real question—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Order, please. [Interruption] Order! I cannot hear, and if I cannot hear, it is not fair on the speaker. I ask that you give the speaker a fair go.

New Zealand households and businesses are spending—well, last year they spent $3 billion on vehicles. Three plus eight, for those who cannot do math on the National Government’s side of the House, is $11 billion. That is slightly more than our current account deficit. Our transport system is highly inefficient because it forces us to spend $11 billion, at least, just to use the infrastructure being built with our tax dollars. That is the major oversight that, unfortunately, the National Government has not grasped—that it has the opportunity to invest in more choice. That does mean better buses and trains, which I know New Zealanders want, and safer walking and cycling, which I know New Zealanders want. That will not only save them money and provide cleaner, healthier communities but also actually free up the roads for those people who still need to drive. That is smart green transport, and unfortunately this Government has not seen the light. It appears it never will. Thank you.

That was a valiant contribution from Julie Anne Genter. I suggest that the old “take down the leader” approach might be happening in the Green Party, because that speech was so technical and confusing, it almost sounded like Russel Norman. I think she might actually be making a play for Russel Norman’s space there.

It is ironic that we are talking about being off the beaten track and off the trail, as are many of the vehicles that the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill relates to, because many of the Opposition members, of course, are off that beaten track and up the garden path, seeking a nomination from, and seeking the support of, their fellow party members and the like. Well, I would suggest that where they are actually heading is the big old road to nowhere—the big old road to nowhere.

The big disappointment for me and for my colleagues on this side of the House is that any good Government actually relies on having a good Opposition. Is that not true? A good Government relies on having a good Opposition. The New Zealand public relies on having a good Opposition to hold the Government to account, not to hold the snapper in the House for a bit of show-and-tell. That did not go down so well, did it? That gutted that particular member’s leadership opportunities.

However, there is a vacuum, and it is quickly going to be filled by one of the three, or possibly Russel Norman, because I think, actually, that when we are talking about the Leader of the Opposition, are we not talking about Russel Norman? I think we are. I think he has done an outstanding job. Now he has got Julie Anne Genter on his tail—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: No one’s as good as Cunliffe, though.

No, absolutely, and he makes a stunning portrait, does Mr Cunliffe.

This bill, which I am sure will enjoy support from across the House, is really about—Darien Fenton laughs about tractors that can do over 40 kilometres an hour. The member would not do that if she was standing in front of a John Deere coming down the road at 41 kilometres an hour. That is pretty much the reaction I am sure she would get if she talked to farmers about the importance of this sort of thing. Although it is a technical bill and although it is quite narrow, it actually has relevance to a lot of people who are out there actually earning this country’s way in the world.

Although the Opposition can trifle about the nature of this bill and the anomalies that need to be rectified, when the Road User Charges Act 2012, the amendment to the road-user charges, was done, it was quite clear that it was a very complex piece of legislation that went back to 1978. So remedying here the anomalies that, although quite narrow, are quite significant is actually very pragmatic. Although the union stalwarts over there will laugh and gibe about it, the farmers around this country know just how important it is. Yet again they can rely on National actually doing for them what they were—

💬 Hon Annette King: He belonged to the best union of all, the Police Association.

Sorry, what was that, Annette King?

💬 Hon Annette King: You were a union member.

I still am. I still am a member of the Police Association. What is wrong with that? I actually know how to drive a tractor at more than 40 kilometres an hour as well. How about that? I can use a front-end loader and the digger bucket—not too bad, not too bad. But that is what you have on this side of the House—you have people who are practical and who are about doing. On that side of the House you have people who are interested in doing what is in the best interests of themselves, and that is exactly what we are seeing as the numbers are starting to line up over there. It is a very interesting and fascinating contest.

This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

I call—[Interruption] Order! The member has not even spoken yet. I am calling Denis O’Rourke.

We are told that there is a need to correct some minor anomalies—minor anomalies—with the new Road User Charges Act 2012 that affect a small number of vehicles and their owners by way of this omnibus bill, the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. Perhaps it should be called the “Land Transport Charges Stuff-ups Correction Bill”, because that is actually what it is. It is really necessary too because of all the stuff-ups that have been made by this Government on this matter over recent times, especially with the 2012 Act. I have been contacted by a number of people over this legislation—irate people, people who are frustrated at Government ineptitude over these things, and people who have had to pay much more than they should have—and they will, of course, now face huge fuel tax increases as well from this grasping Government. So the Government cannot be proud of this bill. This bill is nothing more than a stuff-ups correction bill.

Having said that, New Zealand First has no objection to the changes to be made by the bill, most of which are of only a technical nature. Firstly, there is to be a new regulation-making power to exempt vehicles that are not required to be registered from road-user charges. Under the Act, unregistered vehicles are subject to road-user charges unless they belong to a class of vehicle that is defined as being exempt. It is not possible to issue road-user charge distance licences for these unregistered vehicles because those licences are issued against a vehicle’s registration number—it is not rocket science. Operators of unregistered road-user charge vehicles cannot therefore be compliant with the Act when travelling on roads. The amount of road-user charge revenue that would be collected for these vehicles is low, so the bill would amend the Act to enable regulations to be made, exempting vehicles that are not required to be registered from road-user charges. That is sensible and acceptable, but I am amazed that the current law has been allowed to subsist until now in that state.

Secondly, there is to be a new annual charge in lieu of road-user charges for some vehicles that are exempt from road-user charges. These are vehicles that make very little use of roads and make a sufficient contribution to the costs they impose on the road network through the standard vehicle licence of about $43. However, some vehicles exempt from road-user charges are likely to impose higher costs on the road network than are covered by this. A good example is tractors—presumably driven by National boy racers—operated at over 40 kilometres an hour on the road. The proposal is that these would incur an additional annual charge by amending the principal Act to enable an annual charge in lieu of road-user charges to be collected through the registration system. That is of course just, fair, and appropriate, but it has been a long time coming. Again, why was it not done years ago?

Thirdly, there will be new offences to support enforcement of conditions on exemptions under section 40 of the Act. Owners of light vehicles that are operated almost exclusively off road can apply for an exemption from road-user charges under section 40, but these are subject to conditions prescribed by regulations. For example, an exempt light vehicle can be operated no further than 10 kilometres from the nearest boundary of the property where the vehicle is normally kept. Clearly, there has been a glaring stuff-up here in that there are no offence provisions for breach of these incredibly important conditions. The bill will add suitable offence provisions commensurate with penalties for similar offences under the Act. It is obviously necessary. It is another stuff-up. It has to be corrected.

The remaining amendments are only minor in nature and are also unobjectionable, so New Zealand First will vote for the bill to go to the appropriate select committee.

When New Zealand First stood up, we thought “What’s this going to be?”. But, no, it was Denis—Denis the dyspeptic, the dismayed, the disconsolate, the disgraceful, the derogatory, the destructive. But, worst of all, it was Denis the dismal. I live for the day when New Zealand First says “So we will vote for it, and we like it.” But, no, it did not say it this time. He did say—it squeezed out—and his last words were “So we will vote for this.” Denis, congratulations, and you are looking happy. Did it make you feel good?

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Well, even we want to help you to correct stuff-ups.

Here we go! I had prepared my speech with this final line: “This is a constructive, non-controversial bill whose changes affect only a small number of vehicles and owners, but which will be received positively by these people, and by all parties in the House.” I have never heard such a controversial delivery on such a simple little bill as this, the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill.

I do not know how many people have driven tractors. I have driven a tractor. Paul has driven a tractor. David has driven a tractor. Would members on the other side like to indicate whether they have driven tractors? Lots of people have driven tractors. Oh, there you are. We are all one on this bill—we are all one. And the Assistant Speaker has driven a tractor. Without engaging the Speaker in the debate, I suppose one could speculate on what sort of tractor it was. I would suggest a Lanz. A Lanz tractor would be the one. [Interruption] No, not a Lanz. Ferguson 28?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): John Deere.

John Deere? Oh, John Deere. I am old enough to remember when they were introduced to this country—the green tractors.

💬 Hon Annette King: Are you that old?

Oh yes. We had a lot of fun on tractors in those days, but, my goodness me, we used to take a little bit of risk—

💬 Simon O’Connor: At 40 kilometres an hour.

—at 40 kilometres an hour. But I am glad now that we have much safer procedures for tractors.

Have they not done a lot for the country? I think it was Mike Sabin who said that it is the people on tractors who earn this country’s living. I think it is a good opportunity just to take note of the fact that we have the Minister for Primary Industries with us. Minister, we believe in tractors. We believe in the people who drive them. We believe in the work they do.

This bill will bring about a correction to—[Interruption]. As I said, I do not know what it is about tractors, but it has certainly livened up the Opposition members. It has certainly livened them up. They are having a bit of a race over there towards the leadership, and it is a tractor race, because it is not exactly moving that fast, is it?

These minor improvements that this bill introduces are positive steps, and they play a part in this Government’s efforts to simplify and modernise New Zealand’s transport operation, and to make it effective, efficient, and fair for all users. And this is the standpoint. This is the procedure that you see. For those members who have come along to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee just to see how a meeting should be chaired—just to see how a meeting is properly chaired by my colleague David Bennett—it is an unforgettable experience. David Bennett and I have been sitting together in Parliament for 7 years now, and it has not made any difference to either of us. I commend this bill to the House.

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill—

💬 Hon Annette King: Really?

It does, and I am probably the only member in the House who is absolutely delighted that this piece of legislation has finally come before the House under urgency. Let me explain, because it is not immediately obvious why anybody would be so pleased that we would be debating tractors at quarter to midnight on a Wednesday. But I am personally delighted that this piece of legislation has finally seen the light of day. I happen to chair the Regulations Review Committee, and people will know by the attached information that is available on this piece of legislation that this has now been the subject of two reports from the Regulations Review Committee. Why should it cause such fuss? Well, let me try to encapsulate that as briefly as I can.

Last year the Ministry of Transport brought in a regulation—regulation 8—to continue the existing exemption for farmers who operate light road-user charge vehicles for agricultural operations, so light vehicles such as tractors with limited on-road use. This is the bit that is really interesting. The ministry decided to introduce this regulation “pending outstanding policy decisions on how best to manage” these exemptions. In other words, the Government had not done it in the legislation. In the road-user charge legislation, it had not done it. The ministry officials read the minds of Cabinet and said “We’re going to put in a regulation that says we’ll just roll this exemption over, because it’s all going to come to an end on 30 June 2013 anyway.”

I am sorry; officials do not have that power. They do not have that power. A regulation was made that was never brought to the Regulations Review Committee, except afterwards. This regulation was made in anticipation of the policy position the Government was going to take. I am sorry; that is not how it works. The Government intends a policy position, it states that position, then it enacts it in legislation if it is a competent Government. But this Government is not, so it left this bit out. It meant that these guys with these mainly off-road vehicles carried on paying a swathe of money—a swathe of money—in road-user charge contributions, and the regulation was completely out of order. So my predecessor Charles Chauvel moved that it be disallowed.

At 1 August 2012, when the Road User Charges Act came into force, decisions on whether and how to implement an exemption for light road-user charge vehicles had not been made. The decision had not been made, so the officials stepped into the gap and tried to fill it in. I am sorry, but that is not the way it goes. So they just thought that they would roll over this existing exemption, and it has used transitional regulations rather than saying “Minister, you need to go back.” I understand that Minister Simon Bridges has introduced this tonight, but it is in the name of Gerry Brownlee. Perhaps between them they could get half an idea right, but at the moment all this is doing is correcting something that should have been done by 1 August 2012—1 August 2012. Here we are, a year and several weeks late—a year and several weeks late.

So what did they do? The officials put in a regulation. Charles Chauvel got up in the House with the agreement of the Regulations Review Committee, three of whose members are National members. It is unconstitutionally, in my view, stacked, because it has always been a bipartisan committee before now, but it now has three National members and two Labour members.

Anyway, the three National members whose names are signed to this report agreed that it should be disallowed. So Charles Chauvel went ahead and moved the disallowance motion. Then the Minister did not allocate House time to debate the disallowance motion. Therefore, the regulation was disallowed. In other words, it was overturned. It ceased to exist. It went up in a puff of smoke. The reason, however, that the Minister Gerry Brownlee gave, in front of the Regulations Review Committee, doing the second report on this regulation, was that he did not want to allocate House time to debating Mr Chauvel’s motion because he believed that given the infrequency of using the disallowance procedure, it would not be a good precedent for the Government to use its majority to vote down a disallowance procedure. I am sorry; that is what it is for. If the Government does not want its regulations disallowed, it should make some time, get up in the House, and say: “This shouldn’t be disallowed because we were the plonkers who put the inadequate legislation in to start with, and we are too embarrassed to correct the legislation, so we’re just going to let this go on.”

What happened after the disallowance of the regulation? The Minister reinstated it. It was not any better the second time—it was not any better. So we have a complete litany of ineptitude—a complete litany of ineptitude. The Minister introduced it a second time, with no improvement. He should have amended the legislation, for goodness’ sake, but did not. So I moved another disallowance motion, because it was not any better than the first time—it was not any better than the first time.

Can I just say that I withdrew my disallowance motion. On 11 June this year I withdrew my disallowance motion, on the understanding that this legislation was going to be brought forward to correct the matter in time for 1 August—1 August of this year. Here we are, in parliamentary time on 27 August, putting up for first reading, for goodness’ sake—for first reading—a piece of legislation that should have been in place in order to correct the mistakes previously. It should have been in place in time for 1 August, for the start of the legislation, after the regulation would have been rescinded or overtaken. But no, they still could not get it right—they still could not get it right.

This is just an extraordinary list of ineptitude, of one mistake after another, which the Minister could have fixed last year. I do not know whether it is Simon Bridges’ bailiwick now. I feel sorry for him. He does not understand this stuff to start with, so how can he possibly amend it? How can he possibly fix it? Being such a limited person in this respect, it is very difficult to imagine how he might ever fix it. Here we have the legislation wrong in the first place, a regulation put in place that was not allowable, the regulation was disallowed, the Government did not put aside time to debate it, it then reinstated a regulation that had been disallowed, and by the time that it expired on 30 June this year, the Government was still not ready with legislation to correct it. This would be farcical, if it were not serious for the poor old farmers. This would just be hilarious, if it were not for the poor old farmers. So try to get it right this time, please.

This will not be a speech of persiflage. There might be a little bit of bavardage. There will certainly be no chaponage. I was about to make a short panegyric to the road users of New Zealand—the road users of New Zealand. I have, however, been given my instructions by the whip to make it a short speech, so I will commend the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill to the House.

I understand that the next call is a split call.

Yes, it is. Well, what a shambles. What an absolute shambles. Quite frankly, with friends like those, who needs enemies? The poor old farmers have been paying through the nose because of that Government’s ineptitude—that Government’s complete ineptitude. Not once, not twice, but three times it has got this wrong. It is just a simple thing. It is just a simple matter of deciding what road-user charge applies to tractors, for goodness’ sake. It ain’t rocket science, Mr Bridges. It ain’t rocket science, Mr Bridges. It is quite simple, but everything that Minister touches seems to turn to—well, I cannot say that word, even at 5 to 12 on a Wednesday night. But we all know what it is that everything turns to when Simon Bridges gets his hands on it, and here we go again.

💬 Hon Member: Turns to dust.

It turns to dust. That is what I will say—it turns to dust. This is in a long line of road-user charges, petrol taxes, and those types of things being completely misused by this Government.

It was not that long ago, in urgency—and I object, by the way, to urgency being used to fix up that Minister’s messes again. We seem to be in urgency quite a lot, fixing up Simon Bridges’ messes, but here we go again. Not long ago we were in urgency, and we were passing a petrol tax through—passing an increased petrol tax through. It is 3c every year for the next 3 years. That is the increase in petrol tax, and that was done under urgency as well. Why was that done? It was done so that that Government can pretend that it has got to a surplus in the Budget next year. Every time New Zealanders pull up at the service station and fill up the car or the tractor or whatever it might be that they are filling up, they need to remember, every single New Zealander needs to remember, that they are paying, through the petrol pump, through the nose, for that Government’s promised surplus.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a ruling by the Speaker at question time yesterday that the next person to hold up a scorecard in this House would be ejected from the House, and I request that you uphold that ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am not going to do that. I did not see it, because I was focusing my attention on the speaker at the time, so I did not pick that up. [Interruption] The presiding officer at the time makes those deliberations, and I am certainly not asking someone to leave the House at 2 minutes to 12.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I can understand why you were fixated on the speaker, because what I was saying is so important to New Zealanders. They are paying through the nose, every time they fill up their cars, for that Government’s promises and that Government’s failure to achieve surplus through economic growth. I know that David Bennett thinks it is funny. He thinks it is so funny that this Government has sucked in the New Zealand public, and that the Government has the New Zealand public paying for its surplus because it has failed to get economic growth. The Government is not going to reach surplus next year because of economic growth, but it will reach surplus next year because it has hiked up petrol taxes for every New Zealander every time they pull into the service station.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: You’ve got 1 minute. Come on, cheer up.

Yes, Mr Auchinvole. All of your constituents are paying for your failure to actually get economic growth going on the West Coast. All of David Bennett’s constituents are paying for his Government’s failure to lift economic growth in the Waikato. I could name every single member’s area, because that, in fact, is the truth of the matter. New Zealanders do not want to be paying for this Government’s failure, but they have, through the petrol pump. Farmers have paid for the failure of Simon Bridges to get this right not once, not twice, but three times, despite this side of the House giving the Government all the support that we could possibly give it, pointing this out to it time and time again, and my colleague Maryan Street doing absolutely the right thing. The Government is failing at its job.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)