Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

This bill is another step in the evolution in the approach to road funding in New Zealand. Since centralising our roading system in the 1920s, the principle that all users should contribute fairly in proportion to their use of the roads has underpinned how we fund and pay for our roading system. This is not a revolutionary idea. In this House, in 1933, the Rt Hon Gordon Coates remarked that “We should have all motor vehicles contributing more or less on the same basis.” The principle that Prime Minister Coates, as he then was, talked about is fundamentally about fairness. It directly links what you pay with what you use and the benefits that you receive.

Since then, we’ve continued on a pathway towards better transport pricing. In 1977, New Zealand introduced the road-user charges (RUC) system, moving diesel and heavy vehicles to distance-based charging. That system was and still is world leading. Today, other countries are looking at the model that we adopted back then as something that they could adopt today.

In 2008, we moved to a hypothecated transport funding system, ensuring that revenue collected from road users was invested into maintaining and improving the transport system. As we continue on this pathway, we need to ensure that our revenue tools are sustainable, fair, and fit for purpose. This bill focuses on two ways road users contribute to the benefits they receive and the costs they impose: tolling and road-user charging.

The bill makes amendments to improve the current tolling framework. Tolling allows us to bring forward investment and build the roads that New Zealand needs sooner. It means users who benefit from a new road can contribute directly to its cost. There are three toll roads in New Zealand. In Auckland, we have the Northern Gateway, and in Tauranga, there’s the Tauranga Eastern Link and Takitimu Drive. Three more toll roads have been approved by Cabinet and are under construction. The model works, but as we progress the new roads of national significance, the Government wants to improve this tolling framework.

The Land Transport Management Act sets the high-level requirement for establishing a new toll road. Before a toll can be put in place, the Minister must be satisfied that the road is new, that there has been adequate consultation with a level of community support, that a feasible un-tolled alternative route is available to road users, and that the tolling scheme is sufficient and effective. Within this overarching framework, which stays, the bill makes several changes.

First, the bill allows tolling to be applied more flexibly, to include parts of an existing road where users of that road receive benefit from the new investment. Second, the bill allows toll revenue to be used across the entire tolling scheme, not just the new sections of the road. Third, the bill strengthens the fairness principle that underpins the system. We are maintaining the core requirement for a feasible un-tolled alternative route. However, the bill will also allow toll revenue to be used to help maintain that alternative route if the relevant council can’t fund that maintenance itself. The bill will also allow a restriction to be placed on heavy vehicles using unsuitable alternative routes, protecting those local roads and communities. Fourth, the bill makes the common-sense move to require annual inflation adjustments so that the value of tolls is not eroded over time. It also introduces clear principles for setting toll rates, focusing on benefits to users. Finally, the bill updates the rules for toll concessions to make it easier for the private sector to deliver the infrastructure we need. Taken together, these changes ensure that tolling remains an effective tool to help fund our roads, including the new roads of national significance.

There are also changes around road-user charges. To keep the funding system fair and to ensure that all users contribute based on their actual use of the roads, it is the reality that we need to transition 3.5 million petrol vehicles to road-user charges. The RUC system was designed in the 1970s and it charges vehicles based on their weight and travel distance, which is a fair way to charge for road use, but the manual payment processes reflect the world 50 years ago and they need to be updated. The current system is clunky. It’s paper-based. It relies on road users monitoring their odometers, pre-purchasing the paper licences, and displaying them on their windscreens. This is a 1970s solution in a modern world.

Forcing millions of Kiwis to swap the simplicity of paying at the pump for that kind of bureaucracy would be a step backwards. Paying bills and taxes is, unfortunately, a part of life, but it should not consume life itself. The bill removes the requirement to display, carry, or produce a RUC licence. In an electronic age, a paper licence should not be a strict requirement.

The bill also updates the definition of “electronic distance recorder”. The current rules are restrictive, hindering the use of technology already installed by manufacturers in many cars. The change will allow more flexible approaches to recording distance and it will save cost by giving drivers the option to use inbuilt vehicle technology.

The bill takes a first step in enabling new, convenient payment options. Users will be able to choose their preferred method. This could include set-and-forget, post-payment systems, similar to paying for electricity or a streaming service. The current Act provides for alternative RUC payment methods, beyond the default prepay model. None have been created, because they have been restricted to vehicles with electronic distance recorders. The bill removes that requirement for alternative payment schemes.

We also aim to change the RUC retail landscape. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is currently both the main RUC seller and the regulator. Responses to a Ministry of Transport request for information confirm that there is market interest in providing RUC services for the right vehicle fleet, but potential RUC providers see the NZTA’s dual role as a barrier to offering services for road users, and so the bill enables the separation of the NZTA’s RUC retail role from its regulatory role, giving the market certainty that they are entering a level playing field.

There will be the opportunity for providers to innovate and invest in New Zealand. We have one of the world’s largest and most established RUC systems. Having a more attractive environment for private sector participation may position our system as an example for other countries.

These changes are the first step in transitioning petrol vehicles to RUC. As some people will note, the bill deliberately omits a date for transitioning the light petrol fleet from fuel excise to RUC. That date has not been set by the Government. There is much work to do before we do that, and it would be a large transition as we do that. Rather, this puts in place the legislative framework on improving the RUC system for light vehicles, enabling a competitive retail market and improving user experience before that transition occurs.

It is really important that we get this legislation right. The Government welcomes the input and scrutiny that the select committee will provide. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee, in my experience, has done a very good job, and I acknowledge the chair in the House today—Mr Foster—who, I am sure, will run a robust process. My experience so far is that that committee has operated in a relatively bipartisan and collegial fashion, and I’m sure that that will continue.

This is a really important bill. It’s not a long bill, but it is an important bill in the evolution of our land transport funding system. It continues our long history of evolving our system to meet changing circumstances and of upholding the principle of fairness. It makes improvements to tolling and paves the way for a modern RUC system. It cuts red tape and enables new payment options. It is, as I say, the next step in our evolution, and I commend it to the House.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Labour Party and indicate that we will be supporting this bill through to select committee. There are a couple of issues that we would like teased out at select committee, which I will come to in a moment. But I just want to acknowledge the sort of historical link that the Minister has painted in terms of a picture. It’s no surprise that it has been a long time since this House has turned its mind to some of the issues that are addressed, or seeking to be addressed, in this particular bill. The bill itself really has two components: one is a focus on road-user charges; the other is a focus on tolling and the role within which those as tools have within the wider transportation system.

The proposed changes to road-user charges—or RUC—are generally proposals that we are quite supportive of. They seek to, in essence, modernise and bring up to speed the way in which RUC is utilised here in New Zealand—in particular, around how people are required or not required to display the fact that they have purchased their road-user charges.

The issue is that there are huge administration costs currently in terms of the current way in which RUC is administered in New Zealand. It is certainly our hope that with a change to modernise the system that consumers, households will be the ones that will, at the end of the day, benefit from that. Anyone who has a look at their road-user charge admin fees will know that there is a real issue there: there is no inconsistency in terms of how that is applied. The change around separating the RUC provider and the RUC collector—effectively, the regulator and the seller—is one that we would like to explore further at select committee to ensure that there is no over-influence, so to speak, from the private sector, if that was the particular case that’s being followed.

We believe that this component of the bill seeks to look at ways in which technology and innovation can be utilised, and when we’re looking at the in-vehicle electronic distance measuring opportunities, they currently exist in vehicles all around the place. Being able to utilise that, where it brings down the costs for households is a good thing, but we’d still like to have a look at that.

On the second issue, which is around tolls, this is something that we do have some concerns around. Yes, the Minister has made it very clear that the way in which some of the revenue opportunities will be addressed, effectively, is through tolling. Now, we come with some hesitation around this, because, of course, this is a Government that has a track record when it comes to tolling. We just look to Te Ahu a Turanga and the fact that that was a replacement road, the Manawatū Tararua Highway, yet the Government was seeking to whack a toll on that when the community simply didn’t want it.

Some of the questions that we will be posing at select committee will be around ensuring that those issues are addressed and considered. What is actually up for tolling in this particular proposal? It should not be purely around generating revenue. We accept that there are some considerations where tolling is an appropriate mechanism—we accept that—but that is not the case for every single road for every single community in this country. We do have some hesitation around that.

There are some moves in there—for example, ministerial oversight around exemptions for heavy vehicles not being able to utilise alternative routes, when you think about the Saddle Road in the Manawatū and Tararua district where that was really pummelled as a result of huge numbers of heavy vehicles having to utilise that road, yet the council itself was not able to foot the bill in terms of maintenance.

There are some things in here that go some way to addressing some of those concerns, but there is also a number of questions around the generation of revenue from tolling, but where is that actually going to go? We had similar conversations when it came to the congestion charging or time of use charging that this House previously has passed.

We look forward to being constructive in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. We look forward to hearing from submitters around what impact this will have for them and for communities. We are hopeful that we will find some balance between road-user charges and a scheme and regime that is fair to all but is also able to be administratively not as cumbersome as the current one and also that there is a good conversation around tolling and the appropriateness of that.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Green Party policy actually supports that the cost of maintenance and new-road builds are entirely covered by road-user charges, including higher charges for heavy vehicles that have a greater impact, and this includes the introduction of tolls where appropriate. Having more direct and appropriate pricing for road use is something that would lead to better outcomes for New Zealand, but not the way this Government is doing it. I mean, currently, road users do not pay the cost of the roads—nowhere near it. The Minister of Transport, in his speech, spoke about hypothecation, the idea that fuel tax and road-user charges were entirely recycled back into the roading network, but the reality is that road-user charges and fuel taxes do not come anywhere near covering the cost of the roads, and that’s particularly true with local roads.

Local roads are 50 percent—at least—funded by ratepayers. It’s people paying rates that have to pay for the maintenance for the roads that are local, but more than 50 percent of all vehicle kilometres travelled, by light vehicles and heavy vehicles, are on local roads. We’ve had this completely ridiculous situation where central government is taking money, from all over the country, from local roads—where people are driving, they’re paying their fuel excise duties, and they’re paying their road-user charges on rural roads in Southland and Northland and the East Cape—and money is going into the central coffers, and then the vast majority of it is actually being spent on new State highways nowhere near where those people are driving.

The most outrageous thing is, oftentimes, these roads are justified on the basis that they’re needed for freight—for example, highway expansions in Auckland like State Highway 16 east, which goes down towards the port, and the Waterview tunnel connection; oversize and heavy vehicles can’t even use that infrastructure; they’re actually banned from it. You’ll see brand new tractors being driven on Symonds Street, right through an area full of pedestrians because it’s in the middle of the University of Auckland, at peak time. We’ve spent all this money on highway infrastructure that’s supposedly to facilitate freight, and it’s moving on the local roads, damaging the local roads, causing pedestrian hazards and hazards for people on bikes.

I’ve heard members opposite say, “Oh, cyclists aren’t paying the full cost of the road”—you’ve got to be kidding me. Everyone using a bike is saving the country money. Other countries pay people to ride bikes because it saves public money. If we were to truly fully attribute costs and benefits to people using the transport network, we would pay people to ride bikes because they save the country money in the health system, on the transportation system. That’s the numbers; that’s the analysis. I know the members opposite love to talk about numbers—they’ve never actually looked at them; they don’t seem to understand them.

The truth is that while the Minister may want to raise money from tolls, there’s no way they will be able to pay for the roads of national significance through tolls. There’s absolutely no way. Currently, not only do we have 50 percent of the local roads being funded by ratepayers but we have a huge amount of Crown funding going into transport into highways that can’t even cover the current cost, let alone the future costs. This Government has a laundry list of fantasy roads that they say are going to transform the economy. They are not funded, and they will not be funded by tolls. Why can’t they be funded by tolls? Because they have tiny numbers of cars driving on them, and most of those people are not going to be willing—

Simon Court: Let’s get more cars, then.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —to pay the price that it would take to build those roads.

If we want to have a fully hypothecated approach with good pricing, we have to stop building projects that aren’t needed. Do the tolling and the congestion pricing first, then invest in the alternatives. Actually, what would save the country money is people not having to own as many cars, to be able to move more of our goods by coastal shipping and by rail, to be able to move people around cities in buses, trains, and, yes, on bikes and e-bikes. That’s what makes economic sense.

The reason we won’t be supporting this bill is because of the very dodgy provision that allows roads to be leased to private companies for up to 50 years—

Simon Court: Yes!

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —for the purposes of providing tolling services that return a profit to private companies. That’s where we come back to the ideology—the blind ideology—of this Government and that ACT Party member, who I know will talk about it. It’s all about funnelling public money into the hands of a small few private investors and big corporations.

Simon Court: Oh, Mr Speaker, I can’t resist that invitation.

SPEAKER: Simon Court. Do your call again and I’ll see if I recognise you.

Simon Court: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no—just call again.

Simon Court: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Simon Court.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can’t resist the invitation that the member for the Green Party—Julie Anne Genter—offered to talk about the benefits of tolling and using private finance in infrastructure, but, first, I just want to confirm that ACT supports this bill, because it moves our transport towards something that New Zealanders have been asking for for too long—a system that actually works to fund the infrastructure, that is funded fairly, and that gets things built in a timely manner. People drive every day to work, to school, to pick up groceries; trucks come to Minister Hoggard’s farm to pick up milk. They all need roads without potholes, and that demands a funding model that makes sense, and infrastructure needs to be delivered without years of delays.

This bill helps move us towards that direction. It modernises road-user charges (RUCs), it will encourage competition between system providers, and it updates tolling rules so we can bring in more of this private capital and build roads faster. It enables new technology, like the vehicle telematics that the member Tangi Utikere mentioned, which should be in every new vehicle imported to New Zealand, because the systems we’re talking about are used every day in places like Sydney, in Brisbane, in Melbourne, and, of course in Japan, in the United States, and in Europe. But modern systems must not come at the expense of privacy—that is ACT’s bottom line.

Distance recording should mean distance recording, not building a data set of people’s movements, not GPS tracking of where people are going, not a Government file on where every New Zealander drives. Technology should make life easier, not intrude further into it. Any future RUC system must, therefore, only collect what is strictly necessary, and the regulations that flow from this bill must guarantee that telematics cannot become a back door to broader surveillance of people using the roads. Kiwis should know what data is collected, who holds it, and, of course, how it is protected, and they should be confident it is protected—because, once the State can follow you around, that’s not transport policy anymore; that’s a major shift in power. ACT will not allow that drift.

This bill also deals with tolling. The principle is simple: if you use the new road, you should help pay for the new road. It is more transparent, and it is more efficient than hiding costs in general taxation, isn’t it? With flexible tolling, we get new infrastructure built years sooner, using private investment. We don’t even have to imagine how this works. In Dallas, Texas—I visited there in 2022 and was hosted by the Texas Department of Transportation—they have built, on one of the busiest corridors in the country, a series of express toll lanes to add to the existing lanes. The Spanish contractor Ferrovial built and now operates that route. The project uses private capital to upgrade the existing corridor—including the free lanes—without burdening taxpayers.

The result is faster freight movement, shorter commutes, and a corridor that keeps functioning even at peak demand. It’s a practical example of how smart tolling can solve congestion problems rather than just managing them. If the trade-off is that we actually allow a competent contractor, like a Ferrovial or their equivalents around the world, to take on that responsibility, and we hold them to account in different ways through the contract, then New Zealanders should be confident that they can get better roads, they can drive faster on these better roads, and they can get to where they’re going, and paying a toll will be a small price to pay for that.

Again, modern tolling also raises the same kinds of fundamental questions about how we make sure the system works without becoming intrusive. ACT’s job in this coalition Government is to keep the Government focused on performance, not expanding its reach into people’s lives. New Zealanders want lower living costs, better roads, and infrastructure that’s not bogged down in process. This bill helps. New Zealanders also deserve assurances that a Government—this one, or any Government in the future—will not misuse technology and breach their privacy by stealth. Let’s modernise, let’s innovate, let’s fix what matters, but, as we do, ACT will hold the line. Privacy is the bottom line always.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill. As chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that’s going to be receiving this, I’m looking forward to considering this bill and hearing the submissions. I know we’ll do that diligently because it looks as though there’s going to be quite a number of technical elements to the bill.

There are two key things have been raised already in the discussion: the first one is the road-user charge (RUC) system and trying to make sure that it is modernised—if you look at all the other areas which we’ve modernised in our society, by and large, people have adopted that, and they’ve never looked back on that adoption. They want things that are effective, efficient, quick, and easy to use, but the point that Simon Court has just made around privacy is a strong issue for many of the people who communicate with us as well—not just in this area but across the board—so New Zealand First is very, very anxious about making sure that RUC systems are not an intrusion into people’s privacy and used for anything other than the purpose that they are intended for, which is to support investment in the transport system.

The second one is just to say that we have a huge transport deficit in this country. We’ve already heard, from the other side of the room, that money is taken from a lot of the regions, where it will be needed for investment in maintaining the roading infrastructure, and taken to build some of the roads of national significance. The reality is that we know that there is a big funding deficit. You can only deal with that in a number of different ways. The first one of them is to earn more revenue. Tolling is part of that, potentially, in some areas. The second one of those, of course, is to extend out the time frame in which you make those investments. We don’t want to be undermining the investment that’s actually made in the standard of the roads themselves and the bridges themselves across the country. That means, probably, extending out the capital programme, the roads of national significance. I think the Minister has indicated that that’s exactly what will be happening over time.

Just in terms of some of the comments that have been made around tolling, the Manawatū Tararua Highway has already been mentioned by my friend over there: Tangi Utikere. New Zealand First was also very unhappy with the idea of tolling that road as well and made that very, very clear for two reasons: one, this was not about advancing a road and getting that road built quicker, because the reality was that by the time the tolling idea came up, it was nine-tenths of the way built already. It was sprung on those communities late in the piece. The second one was it was very much a replacement road for the Manawatū Gorge, which, of course, by that stage, failed and had been closed.

Think, in that context as well—the bill talks about this—about the need for having viable alternative routes. I do ask you sometimes to think about where there might well be a road, but if it twists and turns and goes up and down the hills, it is not necessarily a viable alternative route, so we’ve got to be thinking about that. That, probably, is one of the technicalities that there will be in this process.

The second one, in terms of this, is the private sector involvement. I think the experience so far in New Zealand has been somewhat chequered. The private sector involvement in Transmission Gully—was that a success or was that not a success? Well, there have been legal cases, the standard of the delivery and the maintenance has been somewhat chequered, and the price of the delivery has been, again, somewhat chequered. It’s not just simply saying the private sector is going to do it better and can get a return from that. I think Julie Anne Genter, in speaking, also said, “Well, don’t expect the tolls to pay for these roads.” They might well make a contribution towards them, but to think that the private sector would just, without some form of State funding—of course, that’s exactly what’s happened in the example of Transmission Gully; there’s an ongoing commitment by the State to keep on paying for that road. Without that, the tolls on those roads are simply not, by and large, going to pay for them.

An example where they did, for example, going back, would be the Auckland Harbour Bridge, but, by and large, they are not necessarily going to do that. There’s going to be quite a lot of detail to be thought through about those sorts of things. I’m looking forward very much to considering this bill through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to rise and make a contribution on this bill. The bill’s purpose is very clear: to modernise the road-user charges system, to update and provide the financing and funding capabilities through our tolling system. As a member and deputy chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I too, as the chair pointed out, look forward to hearing from submitters, and getting into the weeds of this piece of legislation because it is technical, and there’s already been a number of issues raised in this debate. Actually, we’ve got a really good collegial team environment on that select committee. I don’t agree with the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s contribution about paying people to ride bikes but, other than that, she’s actually a really good contributor to our select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

As has been said, Labour will vote to support this bill through to select committee because our funding tools do need to be updated, and I think we can all agree on that, but we do so with eyes wide open. There are some questions, and a couple of big questions that need to be resolved, I think, before we can have ultimate confidence in what is a final framework. That is important because it is not only important for us as a House to have confidence in the framework but, obviously, the public need to have confidence in how this is going to work, as well.

Modern transport funding, we believe—and has been stated—must be transparent. It should be futureproofed, and it certainly isn’t at the moment. As I said, importantly, it has to be trusted by the public; not a patchwork for various new changes to be made without there being proper safeguards in place. We look forward to being able to tease some of those issues out a little bit more in the select committee process.

There are two main issues that spring to mind, looking at this bill, and those have both been raised by previous contributions but if we take them as two separate items, I’d like to just talk about the tolling issue, and then, of course, the changes to the road-user charges (RUC) reforms. As we’ve heard, tolling is a sensitive issue, to say the least, and this Government certainly has some form—some recent form—on springing the concept of tolling on communities who may otherwise have not factored that into their thinking, so we’re going to be very interested in how that plays out. Any expansion, we believe, must be tightly, tightly justified and, obviously, used sparingly for it to be worthwhile.

The new corridor tolling power is one of the biggest shifts, I think, in this bill and it comes with some real ambiguity about exactly what that means; you know, what exactly is a corridor, how wide can it be stretched, what qualifies as an existing versus a new road? They may sound like simple questions to answer off the top of our head whilst standing here in the House today, but I think there will be a lot more information needed throughout that select committee process to make sure that we are all on board and all able to clearly articulate to the communities that we need to be able to communicate with.

Using toll revenue for alternative route maintenance, again, on the surface sounds fine—certainly might be quite a big help for local councils—but it does raise some fairness questions, I think, especially for communities with no real, realistic alternatives; no routes in place in the first place. I think we will have to be incredibly vigilant about the fairness question, as we go through this process. Automatically increasing tolls each year through Consumers Price Index adjustments, again, might sound good on the surface but it’s actually a significant change. We do need to understand how that’s actually going to land, practically, for households, particularly households that are already under pressure.

We know that this Government’s talked a big talk about fixing the economy and providing relief from cost of living issues, but so far they’ve failed to do that. So this is another piece of legislation that could have impacts on real-life people and real-life households, and we want to understand more about that. Transferring legal liability for tolls to the vehicle owner may very well streamline a process but it also, potentially, has some implications for families—people who use the vehicles for businesses—anyone using a shared fleet. I look forward to asking those questions, as well.

With regard to the RUC, I think we generally do support that, as my colleague Tangi Utikere has laid out, before me, because it’s a modernisation method—or a move towards modernisation—which is good. It is a little bit clumsy and a little bit clunky and we look forward to hearing a little bit more information about that, but we do have to be really, really cautious about that potential for over influence on the private sector, as they carve out those clear separations.

I’m looking forward to the select committee process and, as always, I’m assuming it will be—the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is often referred to as a very collegial committee, and I have no doubt that’s true but that doesn’t mean that there’s a free pass for all sorts of things to go on, particularly if we look at the shortening of bills. Nevertheless, in this particular reading, we support.

This bill strengthens a fair and sustainable transport funding system: one fare for all users contributing in proportion to their use of the road. We have seen this with the Northern Gateway Toll Road, which has reduced congestion and shortened travelling times. The toll collected will then be invested into maintenance and safety improvements, delivering smoother and safer driving for all. By updating our revenue setting, we can bring investment forward and bring the roads that New Zealand needs sooner. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a contribution on the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill. This is an area that I’m not usually involved with, but I have to say, I’m sure that most New Zealanders, when you mention tolling to them or anything which affects their ability to get around in their car, would have a view, and a strong view, probably, on this legislation. I’m no different. I support the comments made by previous speakers on this side of the House, including Tangi Utikere, who is our spokesperson in this area, who outlined that Labour will be supporting this bill, at this stage, because there is a clear need to modernise in this particular area; and, also, Tracey McLellan, who outlined our key concerns around the tolling and the road-user charge changes that have being proposed in this bill. However, this is a bill that is quite complex. In the time that I’ve been preparing to make this contribution, I’ve been looking through the various documents that have been provided in support of this. There are a few that I haven’t been able to look at, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights vet, which, I understand, should be available now that this bill has been tabled in the House.

There is a significant number of considerations. This bill does give a lot of power to the Minister in relation to the decisions that the Minister decides to make around tolling and also around the use of roads by heavy-vehicle users. I think that it is important that we scrutinise this, and that’s why my colleagues have said that we will be supporting this to select committee. But we do have some serious concerns around this.

I suppose the issue with tolling is it will always be a contentious issue for New Zealanders. Our view is that it should only be used appropriately and where clear benefits exist for that tolling as well. We would like to see an effective and modern transport system, but we also need to make sure that equity is considered with that as well. Whenever we look to charges that New Zealanders will be forced to pay, which is one of the main aspects of tolling, we need to be sure that there is fairness associated with the imposition of that toll. There is, usually, an alternative route when there is a tolling made available in New Zealand, and this bill changes those settings, somewhat, in the sense that it may be, as I understand it, that this legislation allows existing roads to be tolled, but not if there is a new route being put in place.

I think it will be very much on a case by case basis. It will affect communities. It’s going to be something that may be quite contentious. There are other important changes, in this bill, relating to the liability for tolls. One of the things that I’ve found is that every time my sister borrows my car, for some reason, a toll is incurred and that toll is sent to my house and is, subsequently, paid by myself and my husband. That is the practice in our family, and it appears that that practice will now be made law by the imposition of this, because it goes to the vehicle rather—that’s correct, isn’t it?—than the actual driver. I’m not sure if she’s aware that some of these roads are tolled, but now—

Arena Williams: But, now, we all are!

CAMILLA BELICH: But, now, we all are. I look forward to informing her of this speech and the fact that she continues to be no longer liable for paying the tolls.

Hon Mark Patterson: Christmas dinner will be interesting!

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, that’s right. That will be very interesting.

However, we do want some more clarity at select committee. There are interesting issues here. I think, for me, the biggest issue is that people need to get around in New Zealand, and if there’s an issue of fairness or if there’s a way that people are unable to get to where they need to go without incurring significant additional costs, then, I think, that would be a downside of this legislation. I’m hoping that won’t be an outcome, but I know my colleagues who are permanent members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee will be looking into that. Hopefully, as we’ve heard it is a collegial committee, they’ll be able to land in an area where the charges that people face are fair and are accepted by the community, and what we are discussing today can be something that can assist with our infrastructure repairs and our infrastructure expansion and that will be enduring.

In defence of the previous speaker’s sister, I invite the previous speaker to step outside to the steps of Parliament where she is not protected by parliamentary privilege and make those same allegations about leaving her sister with toll bills.

It’s great that we’re here on the first reading of the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill. This, of course, amends that landmark piece of legislation: the Land Transport Management Act, which a previous Labour Government put together, and it has been amended and modernised since. Let’s not forget that we did the time of use charging third reading last week. This Government is all about enabling infrastructure to be built. This will help achieve that. I commend the bill.

The question is, That the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.