Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

Members, welcome back. We come now to Part 2 of the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. The debate is on clauses 5 to 10, “Amendments to other enactments”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to be in the chair for Part 2. Part 2 is the part which outlines the amendments to other enactments, and we’ve got amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 and amendments to the Legislation Act 2019. It’s pretty straightforward. They are almost sort of your technical amendments that you need to make in order to enact the substantive policy within the bill itself.

Let’s skip clause 5 and go straight to clause 6. That’s amending the interpretation section of the Land Transport Act to define “enforcement authority” and “moving vehicle offence”, and subclause (3) inserts definitions of “time of use charge” and “time of use charging offence” to reflect, again, our policy intent. New clause 6A amends section 145 to provide for evidence of approved vehicle surveillance equipment. There’s a small amendment under clause 7 which amends the regulations to allow the Minister to set regulations for the setting of infringement fees for the time of use charging offences. Clause 8 amends section 208 to update some numbering of some sections, and then clauses 9 and 10 make some small amendments to the Legislation Act 2019.

That’s a pretty straightforward summary of what the part does. It makes those consequential amendments to two other pieces of legislation in order to fulfil the policy intent of the bill.

Kia orana, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for his comments on those sections. Obviously, you know, this is a bill that the Labour Party will continue to support.

The Minister does indicate that they are technical amendments, but none the less they are still important to ensure that whatever is transferred over to other pieces of legislation is consistent. Now, it’s very clear that what the bill does provide for is an infringement fee for this type of offence rather than a conviction or anything like that, and it doesn’t seem as though that’s going to change.

If I can just pick up on clause 6 of this part, and it is in relation to the Land Transport Act and specifically the interpretation. What is proposed here is inserting a new section that, I guess, adds to the definition of an enforcement authority. Now, the interesting word that’s used there in that definition is that of “entity”. Now, what this is doing is, basically, as we understand it, saying that the entity or organisation that would enforce the scheme would be able to do so by way of an infringement notice as a result of an offence, but they would be identified as an enforcement authority.

The question for the Minister is that when we look at the New Zealand Transport Agency or Waka Kotahi or indeed a local territorial authority, in many respects those entities already have enforcement powers and in legislation would be defined in some respects as an enforcement agency or enforcement authority. My question to the Minister is: is it actually required that they be identified or is there, effectively, a transfer or transference of that status if the entity themselves has that elsewhere in legislation? It would seem that it might be because maybe—I’m not sure—local government doesn’t have anything in terms of that definition in the Land Transport Act, although it may be the case that it could do as a local road controlling authority. So that’s the first question.

The second question is in relation to what is clause 6A. This is section 145 amended, so still in relation to the principal Act, the Land Transport Act, but what this is doing is seeking to add in the reference to an infringement or a charge not being paid in respect of a scheme that is in place over a piece of road. Now, we understand that it’s going to be inserted after the reference to a toll. So, on the one hand, you have the toll not being paid, and this would, basically, insert an additional add-on, so to speak, that this would be for a congestion charge not being paid.

The interesting thing, though, is that what is proposed to be inserted here is “the fact that”. Now, we don’t have that for the toll. It doesn’t say after “the fact that a toll has not been paid”, but for some reason we have “the fact that a time of use charge has not been paid”. Consistency is important. I take the Minister’s earlier point that there’s technical matters here, but why not just drop “the fact that” and just have “a time of use charge has not been paid in respect of the vehicle,”? I know it might be about semantics, but semantics matter, and so that’s really the crux of the question for the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to pick up on what the previous member Tangi Utikere has mentioned in terms of clause 6A of this bill. I think it is important for the Minister to respond to the fact of what that implies in this particular instance, but I also want to check that this particular section is to do with when a car is travelling and potentially has an unpaid toll or unpaid time of use charge, using vehicle surveillance equipment.

In conjunction with what has been discussed previously, I do want to check in terms of who would then be responsible. The reason I ask is that this is the only time in this bill that a toll has been mentioned. Usually, when we’re looking at the circumstances around a toll, there’s a very clear signal that you do need to pay a toll and it gives a very clear signal of when you need to pay that particular toll by. In this case, if we’re using the same allowances, which allows approved vehicle surveillance equipment to be used not just simply for tolls but also for time of use charges, it also then raises the same question of whether the signifier of the time of use charge would be on the same level as what would be done with the toll when a person is travelling, so that way they know exactly when they have to pay things by. Potentially that’s a very easy question that has been covered earlier.

I do have two other questions, though, and the first question is around clause 8, “Section 208 amended”. Now, what’s interesting is that over here it says, “Replace section 208(3)(a)(ia) with: (ia) subpart 3 of Part 2 of the Land Transport Management Act”, but what I found within the legislation itself is that that part was originally repealed and is now sort of, I guess, in some ways reintroduced. Is this in reference to the time of use charge or is there something else that has happened that makes this particular repealed section—now being reintroduced, as far as I can see, in terms of that particular section 208?

My final question is around clause 10, “Schedule 4 amended”. Now, understanding that previously we were looking at the amendment to the Land Transport Act 1998, but now we’re looking at the Legislation Act 2019. This is an interesting section, because it does pertain to an earlier section of the bill, which is new section 65H(1), inserted by clause 4, but it is an important part, because it specifically talks about how the inclusion of this is by Order in Council. I wanted to check with the Minister in the chair that we were looking at changes to the Legislation Act 2019, and particularly in Schedule 4, Part 1. There are other things in that schedule of Part 1 that talks about “by Order in Council” and “secondary legislation”, but in many of those references in there, they’ll also talk about, in the other legislation, the regulatory-making powers when you’re looking at something that’s introduced by Order in Council, particularly when it comes to any provisions around reviews.

Again, this might be something that may have been discussed in the relevant section, new section 65H, in which case the Minister can just say that it has been covered. I’ll be really interested to know from the Minister about what that particular regulatory-making power would look like so that we don’t see an executive overreach.

Those are my three questions. The first one is in terms of how a toll and the time of use charge would be examined or signalled before we get to the point that a person could be snapped, I guess, as part of the approved vehicle surveillance equipment. The second question is around the reintroduced section of the repealed section 208(3)(a)(ia). The third part is around Order in Council and regulatorymaking powers.

I’ll have a crack at the last one first, because Schedule 4 of the Legislation Act lists those pieces of legislation that need to be confirmed by a deadline, which, I think, from memory, is clause 4 in that legislation confirmation. It’s the idea that a regulation that is made must be confirmed by a deadline, otherwise it automatically expires. Now, that’s my understanding, and so Schedule 4, amended by clause 10 of the bill, just lists the regulation-making power 65H(1) in the Land Transport Management Act in that list.

I will skip back to the questions from Mr Utikere. The question around the use of the terminology “the fact that”—if Mr Utikere goes to the original provision in the Land Transport Act, section 145(1), ironically, before the phrase “a toll has not been paid” is the phrase “the fact that”. It’s a consistency between the two.

In terms of the first question around “Do identities need to be specifically identified?”, local authorities and road-controlling authorities are already defined as—what was the word I’m looking for there?—

Tangi Utikere: Enforcement agencies.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: —enforcement agencies in that paragraph. This inclusion will include other entities that enforce time of use charging schemes in accordance with an order. They may well be local authorities or road-controlling authorities, but it does capture those entities that may fall outside of that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for those responses and the clarification. I just have one further point on this section, and it’s in relation to clause 7. This is about the regulations that would be amended, and it’s right and proper that what is included in there is the reference to what the penalty provision would be for the offending, which would be failing to pay the charge. There is the possibility that the charge that would be payable in a particular region—once the scheme board has gone through its process, the Minister has agreed, and a time of use charge is in place. In a circumstance where there is more than one location where a time of use charge is in place, it is possible that the actual fee that is paid could vary—would be different in one particular city to another.

Now, in a circumstance where someone does not pay that fee, what this provision does is it sets the infringement fee for failing to do that. Effectively, committing the offence will lead to a fee being charged. The issue as currently drafted with new section 167(l)(fb), inserted under clause 7, is that it relates to setting the infringement fee for a time of use charging offence. My question to the Minister is whether that limits the ability for the infringement fee to vary depending on the offence that is committed.

For example, if someone fails to pay a fee in an area where it is a higher level, it could be likely that the infringement fee should be at a higher level than a time of use charge that is set elsewhere. The provision as drafted perhaps won’t allow for variation in infringement fees, or perhaps it will. But the question really is the lack of it being a plural in that “infringement fee”, and stating the singular, means that there might be some limitation in circumstances where there is a variation of charge but an infringement fee with that provision couldn’t be variable in itself.

Section 167 provides the regulation-making power for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to all intents and purposes at the advice of the Minister, to set those infringement fees. There’s nothing in section 167 which would prevent variable fees from being set, but you would then be subject to, I guess, regular regulation-making constraints of fairness and adherence to rule of law and whether that’s a proper imposition of the power. I can’t think of examples where different infringement fees would be set, based on the nature of the particular ticket. I could think of a similar one where you might face an infringement fee for not paying a parking ticket, but I don’t think it changes depending on whether your parking ticket is a $12 ticket or $20—I’m not too sure that’s the case.

Tangi Utikere: Depending on time.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Well, the infringement for not paying the ticket might be, but the offence of not paying the ticket itself would be an offence. That might not be the best example to use, but all I’m saying is I think there’s nothing in section 167 to prevent variable charging. It would just be whether or not that is an appropriate use of the regulation.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2