Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 and 4, “Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I have a range of questions for the Minister, and I also have six Amendment Papers in my name, which I do hope the Minister and other members will consider. Some of the issues were not discussed at length in the select committee process. I do want to congratulate all the members of the select committee. I think it was a really great process, and we did make some changes with unanimous support, but the Green Party did note there are some lost opportunities that were not addressed, and I do hope the Minister will still consider those potential changes.

The first one of these has to do with exemptions. This is primarily because of a submission, which I’m sure the Minister has read—a very hefty submission from Auckland Council—where they talk about the need for flexibility with regard to both exemptions and mitigation in order to get the buyin that is needed for—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Can you just refer me to the clause you’re speaking to?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Actually, I’m speaking to my Amendment Paper, which is Amendment Paper 376. There’s two issues. My Amendment Paper 376 amends clause 4. We absolutely agree with the bill taking a narrow approach to exemptions. However, the bill, we think, could make exemptions for mobility parking permit holders. If the Minister refers to successful congestion charging schemes in New York City, Stockholm, and London, they all have some form of exemption for disabled people. This is not something that we discussed at length at the select committee, but looking at the evidence from submissions, I do think it is something that does need to be considered.

I think the main point—and this is raised in Auckland Council’s submission—is that in order for the scheme to be brought in by local authorities and to get the local political buy-in that we need for such a scheme, there needs to be some amount of flexibility to enable very limited exemptions. We did, in the committee, make an amendment that does result in one new exemption, which is for public transport buses. This is also the case in most other cities that have congestion pricing schemes. They do have exemptions for buses and emergency vehicles. The bill, as originally drafted, included exemptions for emergency vehicles. It did not include exemptions for public transport services, but at the select committee we made that amendment. However, the issue around disabled people holding up a mobility parking permit as a reason to enable an exemption or a refund is something that is widely available in almost every jurisdiction that has a congestion charge.

I think the Minister would agree that Stockholm and City of London, some of the first places to have congestion charging schemes, have been successful even though they have allowed exemptions for people with disabilities. Usually there’s some sort of official—you know, it’s different in every country, what the official process is to determine if someone legitimately has a mobility challenge that means that they are exempt from a congestion pricing scheme. In the case of New Zealand, we think this could be the mobility parking permit. Of course there has to be good enforcement of that, but I do hope that members in the New Zealand First Party, Labour, and the National Party will—I wouldn’t expect members from ACT to support it, but I think simply following along the international practice of enabling some sort of exemption for people with disabilities is a reasonable thing to do. But the main issue and the main point by raised by Auckland Council is simply that they need more flexibility. That was something that is raised by the submission.

I, unfortunately, highlighted too many things in their submission, so I’m not finding the exact quote right now, but I can bring it up later. It is about enabling local authorities—here we are. It’s on page 25 of the Auckland Council’s submission: “The legislation needs the flexibility to provide for exemptions in limited circumstances, to address genuine hardships and increase the chances for scheme success.” I know the Minister wants these schemes to be implemented, wants them to be successful, and so I would argue that simply addressing this issue is one way we can enable local authorities. They don’t have to, but the legislation should allow for it.

The short answer to the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s question is no. As the member herself acknowledges, exemptions, by definition, start to chip away at the integrity of why you have congestion pricing—it works the more people pay, because that affects behaviour. The moment you chip away and say, “Well, you are exempt and you don’t have to pay, and you don’t have to pay, and you don’t have to pay.”, by definition, you diminish the utility of the scheme. I think people broadly accept that—well, I hope they do.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee has rightly recommended emergency vehicles—I think most people can agree on that—public transport, buses, which again makes sense, because it actually links to the purpose of the scheme. The whole purpose is to incentivise people taking the bus and getting out of their cars, which is good.

Is there a moral case or a legitimate case for people with disabilities? Yes. Are people sympathetic to that? Yes, of course people are. But the reality is—and this might potentially be harsh, but it’s just the truth—you have to draw the line somewhere. The trucking industry asked for an exemption. Well, the trucking industry, freight—they create congestion, so they should be part of the scheme. Again, though, we actually want them to be part of any congestion pricing scheme that’s implemented.

There were lots of different suggestions for exemptions, and the Government’s taken, I think, a pretty reasonable approach, which is: there’s a couple of minor ones which can be justified, but beyond that, we’re not proposing any further exemptions. The member’s welcome to keep trying, but we won’t be supporting those Amendment Papers.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr—I’m sorry, David Seymour.

Thanks for the random PhD, Madam Chair. I just reflect on something that the member who resumed her seat over there said, that she wouldn’t expect ACT to support an amendment to support people of the disability community. Well, actually, our starting point is we certainly would, because at least two ACT MPs have people living with disability in their family. Our empathy and compassion for the disability community is long and strong.

I can only assume that the member made that comment because she also knows the ACT Party has two economists in its caucus, and we know that if you want to help people with a disability, you want a functioning market and to use income transfers where appropriate to help them access the market, which, as the Minister has said, is the correct way to help people, rather than distorting the market on an ad hoc basis. I have to say, I don’t think that is why the member said it, and it reveals a nastiness that does not become her well.

I’m calling Tangi Utikere. He was on his feet before.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Labour Party do support this bill. We have been long-time supporters of moves in this particular space. I do want to join with my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter in acknowledging the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which was very collegial in coming to some common ground. I also acknowledge that Government members have also accommodated through the report and have seen some sense, perhaps, in agreeing with some of the proposals that the Opposition have promoted.

I just have one first question for the Minister of Transport. It is that throughout the bill, it refers to “the responsible Minister”, as opposed to just “the Minister”, and so that’s just a technical sort of question around that.

I want to pick up on the focus around exemptions. I think that it’s right and proper that this bill does provide for a very narrow exemption lot—and the Minister is correct. The select committee did hear from submitters around some in the freight industry wanting to be included in the exemption process. Civil defence emergencies do include Defence Force vehicles and the like, and where the committee landed was that, no, it did need to be narrow. What we have in front of us, effectively, is two exemptions, or three, really. One is the emergency vehicles, the other is the buses that are contained in a regional land transport plan—so that’s very specific; it’s not around private charters and the like—and the third is around Ministry of Education rural buses.

Initially, our view in the Labour Party was to not support one that went beyond that. However, our view has changed just on the disability aspect, and the reason for that is that when we look at other parts of the world—and Stockholm is one that I’ve learnt to know over the last week, specifically having visited there last week. They have a number of exemptions for diplomatic vehicles and the like, but when I asked them why it was that they had a provision for disability users, it was very simple, and that is that the process, effectively, of authorising a vehicle that in New Zealand would be a total mobility permit is because those users have no other vehicle that they can use to get from A to B.

I do invite the Government to perhaps reconsider the appropriateness of allowing those users who—and I think that the total mobility permit is a good opportunity, actually. It’s justified that that’s the vehicle that meets their particular need. While we originally didn’t support an expansion of that narrow exemption, Julie Anne Genter’s suggestion is actually the one that we will look to support because of the inability of those who travel by that means to, effectively, use any and all other modes. I do ask the Minister to maybe just reflect on the willingness of the Government—given that this is something that we’re looking to try and get some multipartisan support around this bill—around opening the door for scheme boards to consider that. It’s not saying that it is a “must”, but it is still putting in the option list one option that scheme boards could turn their minds to. I would ask the Minister to think about that.

I don’t think that that’s going to undermine the integrity of this, because what’s also really clear is that it could be that scheme boards decide that, actually, they don’t want to offer an exemption process to buses that are contained in the regional land transport plan, or they don’t want to offer exemptions to emergency vehicles. Those are decisions that sit with the scheme board, and so I know that the Minister has said that the Government is not prepared to explore that, but given that this is an option where, really, those that hold those permits have little to no other alternative, I think that it would be the right thing to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for his reply. I do want to reassure the Deputy Prime Minister that I wasn’t intending any insults in my comments. It was precisely because the ACT Party has been very staunch on not supporting exemptions. It’s great to hear that the ACT Party does support people with disabilities, and, I guess, I’d invite them to consider what the tool is for the transfer to help support people on disabilities because, currently, the support is quite inadequate, and there’s nothing within the bill that, I think, explicitly enables that.

Auckland Council did raise in their submission that it is central government that is going to have to directly support people to mitigate the increased cost of the congestion charge, because the council simply doesn’t have the levers or tools to do that itself. You get this slightly disconnected situation where a local authority is the one, hopefully, initiating the scheme. The goal is around transportation, but some of the support and mitigation for people has to come in through the social welfare system. I’m not sure how that will be addressed if not through my Amendment Paper, but I do want to encourage the Minister just one more time. I understand what he’s saying. Of course, we want to keep it very narrow, but my main point, as raised by my colleague, is that virtually every jurisdiction that has brought in a congestion charge has some form of exemption for people with disabilities, and they have all worked.

As Tangi Utikere pointed out, this is all about getting the ability for there to be public buy-in and political support at a local level, because a congestion charge will not be brought in unless local authorities are able to get it over the line. Central government is not going to be imposing these, and, rightly, they should not. Already, the way the legislation is drafted, as Auckland Council raised, has a lot of central government control. They said, put simply, that the legislation enables the New Zealand Transport Agency to, effectively, exercise a right of veto over scheme proposals that negatively impact the operation of the State highway network but do not give local authorities that same right in reverse. I would argue to the Government parties that if they want congestion pricing to be implemented, they need to give the scheme boards and the local authorities more tools to make it politically acceptable. Often, what is politically acceptable is not the pure, perfect theory of the economist; it’s a kind of compromised version where we get as good as we possibly can get but we also acknowledge that lots of people have reasons to support things in practice. We want it implemented in practice, not some perfect thing in theory that never gets implemented. We’ve been waiting 20 years for this, Minister—20 years—and the Green Party was, I think, the first party to champion congestion charging. I think enabling local authorities to have a little bit more flexibility over exemptions—specifically the one for disabilities, however that is officially recognised—would be really, really valuable. It’s not forcing scheme boards to put in place those exemptions; it’s simply giving them an opportunity.

Well, the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter, I think, makes the right point, which is that we’ve been waiting 20 years for this. Having waited 20 years to get to the point in which all parties in Parliament, I think, support the idea of putting a price on congestion in order to disincentivise it and lead to more economic and efficient use of the roads, can we all just agree that if we’re going to do that, let’s get the best damn public policy scheme we can? Let’s try and get a world-class congestion pricing scheme in place.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: All the other cities do.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, all the other cities do it, and that’s not good public policy. I’m advised that when London did it, 50 percent of people didn’t pay it, which, you know—is it a step forward? Well, yeah. Is it better than the status quo? Yes. But is it better than 95 percent of people paying and being subject to the price point, and leading to changed behaviour? No, it’s not. Now, London clearly had to make political compromises along the way, but just because London did it and other countries did it does not mean that New Zealand has to. I just reject the contention that congestion pricing in Auckland will fall down because people with disabilities may pay a congestion price depending on the behaviour that they engage in. They’re still going to pay petrol, by the way. We don’t exempt them from petrol tax, which is a way of, basically, road pricing by proxy. If they drive an electric vehicle, they’re going to pay road user charges, and, eventually, they have to pay based on how much they drive on distance-based pricing, which is a far fairer way of doing it—and we’ll eventually get to that piece of legislation in due course.

I just reject outright the idea that the whole scheme is going to fall over because we haven’t allowed an exemption that the member is keen on, and Auckland Council might be keen on it. It’s an interesting point of view. But as I’ve said twice now, the whole purpose is to subject as many people and groups as possible. It’s a bit like GST, right? Every now and then, people have got bright ideas for things we should exempt from GST. You know, children’s books. Well, I’ve got a threeyear-old. It’d be great to have 15 percent off a children’s book, assuming that the price was passed on, which it probably wouldn’t be. I buy a lot of baby formula—would that be good, to have that off? Yeah, absolutely. Sanitary products—if people get worked up about that, fair enough. Fruit and veg, you know? I mean, I don’t want to be too political, but we’ve had various different suggestions for that. Once you pop, you can’t stop, you know? Once you’re down this path—firstly, it’ll be people with disabilities, then it will be the trucking industry, then it will be people travelling to work at a particular time or going, then it will be—people will find exemptions.

Hon Phil Twyford: It’s a slippery slope!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, so one example that—Mr Twyford makes a really good point; it’s a slippery slope. Stockholm did what the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter probably supports in her heart of hearts, which is they exempted low-emissions vehicles.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah, good idea.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, see, but that’s a terrible idea. I’m sorry, but that is a terrible idea. Low-emissions vehicles are vehicles. If you’re trying to solve the public policy problem of fuel efficiency or carbon emissions, there are different ways to address that, and the member and I would probably disagree on the right public policy mechanism to do that. But they are vehicles. The problem is congestion, and you’re putting in place a congestion pricing scheme that uses price to efficiently allocate road space. Focus on as many people as possible paying that price to change behaviour. If you’re worried about emissions, that’s a whole other debate. Do not confuse the two. The Government stands for good public policy—I thought that member did too.

I’d just like to acknowledge Julie Anne Genter’s clarification. I withdraw my comments that she was nasty towards the ACT Party, and I’d like to just record her acknowledgment of the ACT Party’s microeconomic chops.

As it relates to this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to engage in the crossparty spirit of comity which has broken out across the committee, taking into account the Minister of Transport’s reference to Pringles, what is the Minister’s favourite Pringle?

The second question that’s related to this is: has there been a distributional impact analysis done on the impact of congestion charging? Obviously, all members across the committee do support it, but we would like to, I guess, have the full facts in mind. We do want to acknowledge the Minister’s commentary around the impact on not watering down the potential for pricing and the importance of keeping it as pure as possible in terms of the scheme. Obviously, there are many ways to create potential rebates so that everyone is still facing the price at the initial point, but maybe designing some sort of rebate scheme so that there is that pricing element that’s still baked in, but there is potential for people to potentially get the rebate, like my colleague Julie Anne Genter suggested, which is potentially creating not an exemption scheme but, essentially, a rebate scheme for people with disabilities.

Acknowledging the Minister’s comment—surprisingly, the Minister would find common ground with the Degrowth Greens Network in not exempting low-emissions vehicles from the charge because, as the Degrowth Greens Network would point out, a vehicle is still a vehicle, and we need to consider the fact that that even though low-emissions vehicles are a lower emission mode of transport, it’s still good to, if possible, shift people away from these emissions-intensive modes of transport, because low-emissions vehicles still require embodied energy to have to be made. They’ll also still be running from the grid, and the grid is still not 100 percent renewable.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask the member, which clause are you speaking to?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, I’m responding to the Minister’s points about why it’s good to not exempt low-emissions vehicles, so I’m responding to an answer—

Can you please refer to the bill.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: —that the Minister gave. Clause 4—I’m still continuing on the point. That actually leads on to my next point, which is: has there been a climate impact analysis done on this? We do know that congestion pricing is one of the ways that we can help reduce emissions, and if there has been a climate implications of policy assessment that has been done on this, how many emissions will the introduction of congestion pricing lead to? Obviously, it’s not mandatory at this stage, but I would like to see the modelling that’s been done, because we do know that new section 65C, inserted by clause 4, makes it so that it’s not compulsory for local authorities, but what is the sort of maximum range that’s been done? Like, what’s the assumption if all territorial local authorities do it? What are the emissions reductions if half of them do it? I’d be interested in the answer.

Just to recap on the questions that I’ve asked, the distribution analysis would be good if there’s one that has been done. The second is the climate impact analysis—has one been done, and what were the results of that?

Just to deal with a few issues, I have to come back to you on the climate implications of policy assessment. I think the answer is it hasn’t, but I’ll double-check for you. A member asked what is my favourite brand of Pringles.

Tom Rutherford: Sour cream and chives.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As it relates to this bill.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Big time, sour cream and chives—number one.

A member asked about impact assessments. The point will be that local authorities that initiate a scheme are actually required to do an impact assessment.

Broadly, I think all members have now, basically, agreed that congestion costs anywhere between half a billion dollars and $2 billion. Estimates vary. Everyone agrees there’s a problem in Auckland and Wellington in particular. Reducing that down has a big economic impact, but the exact scheme designs that local authorities engage in will depend, basically. They’ll have to go through a process of doing that, and actually that has to be consulted on, so that’s built into the scheme design that is part of the bill.

The member makes a good point around rebate schemes, which, potentially, are a way of reallocating distribution—you know, people who are affected by it. Actually, I’m advised that new section 65Z(2)(d) inserted by clause 4 requires an analysis of the distributional impacts as part of the scheme.

The other point I’d point out is the Total Mobility scheme, which provides very generous subsidies to people who have disabilities, for example. It’s a complicated funding formula between the individual local authorities, the National Land Transport Fund, and the Crown, and very generous subsidies for people who use Total Mobility. It’s a very worthwhile and valid scheme, which many people take advantage of.

It’s the first time in my life I have been likened to a member of the Degrowth Greens Network—frankly, it’s not an experience I particularly enjoyed, but thank you very much for that, to the member, and I’ll come back to you—

Tom Rutherford: Slander.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well. I’ll come back to you on the climate impact policy assessment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in the Minister’s analysis of the percentage of vehicles that would be likely to have mobility stickers. I think you were talking about the fact that surely we don’t want 50 percent of vehicles going through these schemes to be let off, but surely if the proportion of people is somewhere between a quarter and a fifth, depending on whose figures you take, the likelihood of them travelling at congested times is not as high.

Unfortunately, the proportion of people with disabilities in work is lower than the average work participation, so I would like to know a little bit more about why he sees the mobility parking permit exemption as making a very significant difference. I’m also interested in the fact that this scheme is meant to improve traffic flow—improve times and reduce the number of vehicles. I wonder to what extent he’s going to see this relatively cost-effective mechanism as an alternative to very large capital expenditures and how long he’s likely to let a time of use charging scheme go for before potentially reviving some other travel plan.

Going back to the issue of this being a good idea that we shouldn’t amend too much despite the other cities that my colleague referred to, there will be cities and there will be councillors who want to find any excuse not to do this. I wonder if the Minister would address the question of whether not allowing mobility exemptions could actually make a council less likely to proceed with the scheme. We’ve seen people say that bike lanes are ablest, and I appreciate that the Minister has supported a number of cycling schemes, but there are genuine issues about ableism and there are ones that are just revved up to stop more sustainable transport options.

Before I take another call, I’m just going to point out that the last six calls have all related to the same topic. This is the first and probably last warning about repetition.

No, a climate implications of policy assessment (CIPA) was not required, because the bill doesn’t propose any particular scheme; it’s a framework, so no CIPA was required.

Secondly, I think I’ve dealt with the mobility issue at length. As I’ve said, ad nauseam now, the moment you start exempting groups or people—you could find any reason; there are any number of good arguments for it, which people would be very sympathetic to—you diminish the utility of the scheme, and the next exemption becomes easier. I do not believe that schemes will fall over at a council level because people with disabilities will be subject to a congestion price. I just do not believe that will be the case. We could be wrong; if that’s the case, we can come back and revisit it, but I find that highly unlikely in relation to deferred capital investment as a result of time of use pricing. Well, let’s just wait and see. Let’s get the bill in place and get a scheme in place and see how it goes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am disappointed in the Minister’s answer, but I accept it. The issue we haven’t talked about, of course, are the buses, the rural school buses. There might not be many of them to be exempted, because the current Government seem to be cancelling all the rural school buses anyhow, so the narrow approach to the exemptions will be very narrow indeed.

I want to turn to new section 65C(4). Now, this is about the notice of the charging scheme. It talks about the need to identify the locations with poor traffic flow. We don’t hear about congestion or anything like that; we hear about the poor traffic flow as the rationale for the notice of proposal. One of the issues, of course, that we are going to contend with is community interests will think that poor traffic flow will mean different things to different communities. Poor traffic flow in Auckland will have a particular experience or meaning, as opposed to poor traffic flow maybe in Levin. The issue there is how there will be a level of consistency around poor traffic flow and trying to understand that there is a minimum threshold or standard where a potential time of use charging scheme is warranted. That’s the first question for the Minister.

The other is in relation to new section 65D. This is a little bit of the more nitty and gritty detail of what is expected to be in the proposed charging scheme. One of the things that’s not identified there is whether or not the scheme proposal needs to include what some of the alternative options in terms of people being able to get where they need to go—where that might lie.

I appreciate that that might be very difficult in a scheme arrangement like Stockholm, where it’s basically an in and out sort of environment, as opposed to maybe Gothenburg, where it’s more a tennis racket or a stretch of road. It’s much more easy to identify alternatives for traffic flow if it’s a stretch of road, and saying, “Well, users can use this alternative or that alternative.” It’s very, very difficult in an in and out, entry/exit sort of approach.

The question for the Minister is where he sees that being placed in a scheme proposal, if at all. This is not a toll road opportunity where you’re required to identify alternatives, but it still, I think, would lend some weight as part of the proposal if there was some identification of what alternative routes could be used at a time—I’m not talking about the specific time of operation, but alternative routes that might be available.

The member makes good points. In relation to traffic flow, this is ultimately going to be an issue for local authorities or, indeed, the Minister, depending on who initiates a time of use charging scheme. In reality, councils will judge for themselves traffic flow, and they’ve got to identify the improvements that we made to traffic flow—so traffic in and out of Auckland.

The Auckland CBD is very congested at peak times. Everyone knows that. It’s partly why we’re talking about this bill. There are other parts of Wellington and parts of Christchurch. Levin, and Masterton, and parts of Dunedin, perhaps not—with the greatest respect to those wonderful towns and cities. They’re wonderful places, but they don’t necessarily have traffic issues that could be addressed through a time of use scheme. In reality, I think all members know this. We’re talking about Auckland, Wellington, and maybe Christchurch. Let’s wait and see where we get to. As I say, I’m just keen to get the bill in place and get something up and running. We’ve signalled, as a Government, that the starting point will be Auckland. We learn as we go. We learn as we go. Actually, because we’re so far behind other places, we can pick up some of the lessons from Stockholm and other places that have done it. London’s had it for 25 years.

Shanan Halbert: You should do a post on it, Dan. You haven’t posted on it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Shanan Halbert: Just encouraging my colleague to do a post on it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we’re looking forward to your posts. That’ll be good too. Thank you. Thank you for your support, Mr Halbert.

In relation to new section 65D, a slightly facile answer to this is that the alternative is, by definition, not where the scheme is and not at the time the scheme applies. If you do a ring and you say, at a particular time in a particular place, the congestion charge is paid, well, the flip side of that is you don’t pay if you travel outside those times, outside that area. That’s the alternative. I think, in reality, what’s likely to end up happening is that as councils and scheme boards develop proposals, they will publicise those options and those choices as part of the development of the scheme—and, likewise, the public transport option and things like that.

The bill, essentially, envisages revenue generated from the time of use being funnelled back into mechanisms in order to provide transport choices for people, which I think is appropriate, so that will be part of the development of the scheme as well. Is it perfect? Probably not, but we’ve just got to crack on and get a scheme up and running. We can learn as we go, and we can iterate the legislation if, indeed, it needs changes as we go.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question, but I want to start off by saying, in relation to the suggestions that have been made that not including an exemption for members of the disability community would possibly lead to councils pulling the plug, that Auckland and Wellington have been pursuing the idea of a congestion charge or a time of use charge probably for a decade and a half, if not longer than that. This is something that, if they were to walk away from it, would be very, very foolish.

I want to thank the Minister for the flexibility in responding to the issues that the select committee raised, and one of them was indeed that area of exemptions, because originally there was not going to be a provision for exempting public transport. There’s scheduled public transport, and Tangi Utikere raised the issue of the Ministry of Education rural buses as well, and the whole purpose of this scheme was to encourage people to change their time of travel or their means of travel, and public transport obviously was a key means of travel that we wanted to encourage people towards.

I wanted to thank the Minister again for responding to the issues. We had some quite good discussion around a number of issues that were raised by the select committee. That was one. Another one was the governance arrangements, and the third one was the way in which any revenue was going to be spent. The committee was quite strong on those, and the Minister responded to those, and I thank him for that.

There is one question I’ve been asked by a colleague. It’s not a question that I’m asking because I want to ask it, but a colleague has asked and, as a team, we said we want to get an answer on this. It is around the issue of privacy. It’s making sure that we can give comfort to people that there is not going to be some massive collection of data that’s going to be held over people about where they were travelling, how they were travelling, when they were travelling, and all those sorts of issues.

If you wanted a particular area in terms of the bill, section 65ZF, in clause 4, is probably the best place to look, as it talks about the potential impact on privacy. I’d just like to ask the Minister if he can give the public some assurance that there are going to be no issues with privacy around this scheme and that people can rest easy on that score. Thank you.

Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you to the honourable member Andy Foster, as well, for his very diligent work in chairing the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It was, from my understanding, a very well-chaired select committee, and we’ve managed to achieve some unanimity, I think, which is really good, due in part to his very good chairing.

I think that the member makes a good point around privacy, and the member himself adverts to the relevant section, which is new section 65ZF in clause 4, which, rightly, says that “(2) The enforcement authority and the Agency”—which is the Transport Agency—“must not use any personal information … except for—(a) the purpose of collecting time of use charges (including billing);”—which I think is totally appropriate; obviously, members will be familiar with that now via tolling, the motor vehicle register, licences, etc.—“or (b) the purpose of enforcing this subpart.” Obviously, the Privacy Act applies to other information that is collected, which has been amended many times, and I think that it works quite well.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I know that we’ve well and truly covered the issue of disability vehicles, but could I put on the record of this debate that mobility parking permit holders are less than 5 percent of all driver licence holders—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, you can put that on the record, but I heard the previous Chair ask us to move on from that topic.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, yes. So now my topic—moving quite on to my Amendment Paper 374, which is in clause 4 and proposes a new section 65A and 65B. The point of this Amendment Paper is to address the high cost of air pollution. The Minister, the Hon Chris Bishop, has referred to being a supporter of good public policy. The Minister has rightly noted the cost of congestion being in the order of a billion a year, maybe, for Auckland. The Minister might realise that the cost of harmful air pollution in Aotearoa is upwards of $10 billion a year. It kills more people than traffic crashes do—car crashes—and it has an enormous strain on our health system and productivity, because small children getting asthma—we have one of the highest asthma rates in the world.

The reason why the Minister, as he was referring to earlier—when we talk about emissions and low-emissions vehicles, there are carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions and then there are harmful air pollution emissions. The harmful air pollution is specifically what we are asking to be addressed. This comes out of the inquiry—which the Minister, I believe, sat on the select committee when we had the inquiry into congestion charging, or maybe it was Christopher Luxon, actually.

In the previous term of Parliament, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee had an inquiry into the congestion question. During that process, we received numerous submissions from experts overseas who recommended that within our congestion charging legislation we allow some provision for scheme boards to apply additional charges to high-emissions vehicles. This is not in competition with congestion charge; it’s complementary to a congestion charge, and it is very much something that would be useful to local councils, as they have some requirement under national environmental standards to guarantee air quality, yet they don’t have any levers for the geographic containment of where air pollution tends to be worse.

Hence the reason why zones like a congestion pricing zone, if we’re able to take into account high and low-emissions vehicles, are a very, very useful, sensible evidence-based policy tool for addressing the geographic location and constraint and giving local authorities some tool to address poor air quality. That’s why low-emission zones, low-emission vehicle charging, in tandem with congestion charging, is quite a useful tool for concentrated air pollution—areas of concentrated air pollution problem. It’s the regional councils that are responsible for making sure the airshed meets a certain standard, right? Currently, they have no tools to address that. It’s not something that we address through any other public policy mechanism that I’m aware of, and the cost is five times higher than the cost of congestion to the public.

If you support good public policy in this House, we would love to see cross-party support for this Amendment Paper 374, which would simply enable scheme boards to take into account highemissions and low-emissions vehicles and apply not exemptions for low-emissions vehicles but higher charges for high-emissions vehicles that have harmful air pollution impacts in those parts of the city.

Look, I’ve dealt with this now a couple of times, I think. I’ve dealt with it already, but I’ll just repeat, very briefly: I’m really keen not to confuse what we’re trying to achieve here. What we’re trying to achieve is addressing the congestion question in Auckland and to some extent Wellington, and maybe some other cities, OK? That is, as the member—

Kahurangi Carter: Dream big.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Dream big. The member’s colleague made a point, about half an hour ago, that we’ve waited 20 years for this. I agree, so let’s focus on getting it in place, focus on what congestion pricing schemes can do, which is reduce congestion. Is there a debate, is there an argument, around how we incentivise and reduce emissions? Absolutely, but that is a separate issue to this debate and this bill, which, if we can get it into place, will bring New Zealand into line with many other jurisdictions, and, frankly, most people would say it’s taken way too long to do this. The member talked before around social licence and said the whole scheme is going to break down if we don’t allow people with disability permits to be exempt from congestion prices. I disagree with her.

The easiest way to make sure that congestion pricing in every city in New Zealand never happens: say to people who drive gas guzzlers, “Oh, by the way, you’re now going to be lumped with an even higher price.” I think we all know implementing congestion pricing is going to be bumpy, OK? It’s going to be unpopular. Every jurisdiction that has implemented it, it’s been wildly unpopular, and then the moment it starts and everyone experiences school holiday traffic, they go, “Oh well, this is fantastic. We should have done this 20 years ago.” It’s like, “Absolutely”. But it’s going to be bumpy on the way through, and I think we all just have to recognise that. It’s not going to be very popular. That’s why I’m really pleased that I think I’m right in saying we have unanimous support for it across Parliament. That’s really good; this is a ginormous step forward for good transport policy in New Zealand.

But, respectfully, Ms Genter, the easiest way to destroy public support for congestion pricing would be to whack big new prices on people who happen to drive emissions-intensive cars. You would see public support that’s going to be a bit tentative to start with utterly evaporate, so we’re not in favour of that. It’s a separate issue.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m going to take a burning question from Tangi Utikere, and I’m sure it’s going to be a new issue.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister’s talked about the support across the House, and that is certainly my perspective here, which is why I’m working my way through different aspects that haven’t been touched on.

I want to look at new section 65E. This is about the consultation process around the proposal. When it comes to new subsection (1)(a), it talks about the fact that before a scheme is even submitted to the Minister, the board needs to undertake public consultation. Now, this is very important, so my question to the Minister is around expectations around the minimum levels of engagement for that process. There is a process here, that was outlined previously, around whether a local authority or two or more local authorities that have come together want to pursue this or whether it’s Minister initiated. If it’s involving local government, rightly or wrongly, members will be familiar with the fact that that sector has a special consultative process that it’s called upon to engage from time to time, where the potential outcome is of significance. This just talks about the fact that there needs to be public consultation.

Now, we all know that that could mean just putting a public notice in, getting some submissions, and then saying, “Yeah, OK. We’ll go ahead”—or not. My question for the Minister is around expectations for the level of public consultation that a scheme board must undertake before they even submit that to the Minister. I want to, if I may, move on to a couple of other clauses as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could you do it now?

TANGI UTIKERE: Yeah. It’s new section 65F—this is about the actual submission of the scheme—and, in particular, new subsection (2)(c). This is the information that might be accompanying a proposal.

Now, what’s listed there in the bill at the moment is that they could provide any other information that the responsible Minister considers necessary. The problem is that there’s nothing in the bill that identifies what process would be engaged or used to signify that the Minister might need that information. The question there is: is it just that there’s going to be some ongoing communication and contact between the scheme board and the Minister? If so, can the Minister point out where that provision actually exists? If not, how is the board going to know that the Minister requires some information in order for him or her to exercise their thinking in that space?

The member Tangi Utikere makes good points. In relation to public consultation, look, this is local government’s bread and butter. This is what they do, I would argue, probably far too much. I think it’s relatively straightforward. The scheme board, before they submit something to the responsible Minister, have to do public consultation. My expectation would be that they’d be relatively comprehensive. The bill and I are not going to dictate the number of months and all the rest of it. Ultimately, this is what local authorities do, and they’re actually pretty good at it, so I don’t want to get too worked up about that.

In relation to section 65F, inserted by clause 4, I think (2)(c) is there as a bit of a catch-all, but it should be read in light of (2)(a) and (2)(b). The scheme proposal has to have the report of the consultation we’ve just been talking about, a summary of the submissions, and the impact assessment. Having just gone through a bit of this with some councils in relation to a variety of things under the Resource Management Act, there is quite a lot of backwards and forwards between central government and councils as part of the formal exchange of documents and things like that. My expectation would be that it would work in a similar way, in which the scheme board might say to the officials, “Here’s what we’re planning on submitting”, and if there’s some other information that the Government or the Minister might like that would encourage the scheme board in advance of the submission in order to help expedite the process, submit that as well.

Now, look, I can’t imagine, off the top of my head, exactly what that information might be, but the point is it’s there as a catch-all. In case the Minister needs more information, they can ask for it. My expectation would be that Ministers and local authorities would work in good faith around these things, and I’m very confident that will be the case.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 400 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 374 are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 375 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 376 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 377 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 378 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 379 be agreed to.

Members, the time has come for the committee to break for dinner. I just did want to make a comment: in terms of committee stages, when a bill is largely agreed and it’s been through a select committee—I heard the previous speaker talking about things being stretched out around the same topics—we would expect the questions to be really homed in in this situation. Under urgency or when a bill’s just put before the committee, then we’re quite happy to extend things out. In a situation like this, there was plenty of opportunity in the time frame to answer those questions. I just wanted to put that on the table. The House is suspended until after the dinner the break at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Part 2 Amendments to other enactments