Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The 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 Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

Congestion is a tax on time and productivity. It means we are away from home for longer, sitting in gridlock. It means fewer jobs being done, fewer goods being moved, and delays to services being delivered.

This is actually quite a banner day in and amongst a, dare I say, banner couple of weeks for productivity and urban growth. Successive Governments of both parties and a select committee inquiry in 2021 has broadly come to the same conclusion, which is that time of use charging is something that we need to do as a country to reduce congestion. I’m really proud to be part of a Government that is getting on with it.

I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor in the transport portfolio, the Hon Simeon Brown, who started this work, but I also want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Michael Wood and others from the last Labour Government that started this work, as well. This bill is different to that which was canvassed in the last Parliament. It picks up some of the ideas, and takes it forward into 2024 and 2025.

This bill is a vital step towards improving the performance of our transport networks through a nationally consistent yet locally adaptable framework. It represents a strategic response to some of the most pressing challenges in the transport network, including congestion and demand for better transport solutions.

The simple proposition is this: by charging motorists to travel on certain roads at peak times, we will encourage people to change the time or the way they travel or the route they take, maximising the efficient use of our roading assets and keeping the traffic flowing freely. Faster, more reliable travel times will help increase economic growth and productivity, lower costs for businesses and their customers.

Now, Auckland Transport and the Mayor of Auckland have released a report this afternoon, which shows that congestion in Auckland will cost the economy up to $2.6 billion per year by 2026. That is an extraordinary sum of money. That is $2.6 billion that could otherwise be deployed in economic activity that actually grows the economy.

Previous modelling has shown that successful time of use charging could reduce congestion by up to 8 to 12 percent at peak times, improving travel time significantly. Now, 8 to 12 percent—let’s call it 10, for the sake of argument—10 percent congestion reduction at peak times might not sound like a lot, but, actually, the snowball effect, the compound effect, of that at peak times actually has the effect of reducing travel time significantly. Just by spacing out when and how people travel on our roads, it can make a material difference to travel times and the ease of getting around.

It is simply an economics problem. There’s a fixed amount of road space and everyone converges on it at the same time. The effect of that is congestion, because there’s a fixed amount of space and there’s a certain number of vehicles travelling. The economists would tell you that the simple way to solve that is a use price. That is exactly what other countries have done and other jurisdictions have. I think of New York, which, up until President Trump’s executive order stopping it, had experienced quite a reduction in congestion as a result of a 20-year journey to introduced congestion charging in New York. It’s about the same amount of time we’ve been talking about it here. I was talking to some people the other day, and I think I’m right in saying that the first economic study into time of use pricing was by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), and, from memory, it was back in 1994.

Tom Rutherford: Oh, before I was born!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Before you were born? Goodness gracious me! Well, Tom Rutherford wasn’t alive, but back then the boffins at NZIER were doing studies into congestion pricing.

From memory—I don’t want to mislead the House—there’s been about 20 studies since then by NZIER and all of the transport modelling agencies and the economists out there. There are a few things that economists broadly agree on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Capital gains.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, well, that’s definitely not one of them. The only people who agree with capital gains are the lunatics in the Green Party.

There’s a few things economists agree on—well, it’s a shame Chlöe Swarbrick can’t hear this—broadly three things: one, free trade’s good and free trade raises incomes, free trade lowers the cost of production and it lifts all boats; free trade’s good. They agree on that. They agree that rent control is stupid and it lowers the quality of housing and disincentivises people from offering rental goods into the market place and so you end up with stretched demand for rental housing because price controls like that don’t work. They broadly agree on that. By the way, that is Green Party policy. They’re still banging on about how we need rent control. It’s a dumb policy and they know it. The third thing they agree on is that time of use pricing or congestion pricing is good. I’m pleased to be on the side of economics on this side of the House. Every now and then, the Green Party get there, but then sometimes they misread the text. But, anyway, we’ll wait and see where they vote on this bill.

As I say, overseas time of use pricing schemes have been implemented. We have taken some of the lessons in the policy design we have adapted for this bill. The first is that schemes need to be scalable. There’s an option to start small, build support, and expand where needed. The purpose of the charge needs to be clear and the performance against this purpose needs to be measured and monitored. That is what we will be doing through this proposal. The other lesson is that revenue needs to be reinvested into the area paying the charge and used to improve mobility and transport in the area. That is part of it as well. People want to know that if they’re paying for something, the money is going into a system that will get recycled into providing better transport choices and options.

Central and local government need to collaborate for the schemes to be effective. One simple reason for that in New Zealand is that central government owns the State highway network, and local roads are owned by the city councils or the relevant territorial authorities. Of course, people drive from one to the other, and they don’t go from a State highway to a local road and go—well, nerds like me do this, but most people don’t— “Oh, I was on State Highway 1 and now I’m on the local road owned by the Horowhenua District Council.”

Katie Nimon: Yeah, maybe it’s just me and you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, Katie Nimon does that. She goes off that expressway, which we’re expanding, by the way—that great Hawke’s Bay Expressway—on to the State Highway—what is it up there?

Dana Kirkpatrick: 2.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: 2—yes, yes. And, of course, we’ve got the Waikare Gorge, also north of—connecting my good friends’ seats. But, anyway, most people don’t do that.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and local councils have to work together, so there are legislative amendments to the Land Transport Management Act and the Land Transport Act 1998. This is enabling legislation. This doesn’t put in place congestion-charging schemes; it’s an enabling legislation. It takes a partnership approach. As I say, it will allow local authorities to collaborate with the NZTA in forming scheme boards tasked with proposing and developing time of use charging schemes. Neighbouring councils within the region are invited to participate, promoting regional collaboration—we’re all in favour of that. It will be led by local councils but in partnership with NZTA.

This is not about generating revenue from drivers. All net revenue from the schemes will be reinvested directly into transport projects in the region where the revenue is collected. This creates a self-sustaining cycle of continuous improvement, enhancing mobility and infrastructure. The funds will be additional, supplementing rather than replacing existing national local transport funding. And, of course, these schemes can even defer the need for network investment. By reducing peak demand and improving traffic flow, successful schemes optimise the use of existing infrastructure.

If you want a modern-day example of something that I’m talking about, I think of the Northern Busway in Auckland, which was built in 2007, 2008. It was a bit controversial when it was built. Forty percent of people crossing the Auckland Harbour Bridge take a bus. That has actually elongated the life of the bridge, because many more people are just taking those, fast, direct buses to and from the Shore and further beyond. It’s a great example. By the way, it was $110 million in 2008, from memory, at a benefit-cost ratio of, they reckon, 1:1. It is almost certainly the single most successful transport project in New Zealand history, because of the deferred investment that it has allowed the Harbour Bridge. We do need to get on with the Harbour Bridge but we would have had to get on with it a lot sooner than if it hadn’t been for the Northern Busway. And, of course, we’ve got the Northwest Busway coming, airport to Botany, and, of course, other great investments like that.

This is going to be fair and transparent to protect the social licence. It is going to be a bit controversial. My full expectation is that, as we develop these schemes, there will be a bit of public debate about it, but the experience from overseas is that it is edgy when you first introduce it, but then, as people experience it and they see the scheme working, and they see that it’s easier to get to work in the morning and home in the evening to spend time with the kids, and tradies find it easier to get around and do three jobs in a day rather than two, people come to accept it. That’s been the experience from overseas.

As I say, this bill is going off to select committee. I’m looking forward to the engagement from the Opposition in relation to it. We do want to get it right. We’re open to feedback and changes as the debate goes forward. But we do want to get on with it. It is a really important move for New Zealand’s future. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to arise on behalf of the Labour Party as the transport spokesperson to speak on this time of use charging amendment bill. The Minister is quite right in that this is a bill—or an issue, actually—that is not new; it’s been around for some time. This bill actually was introduced a number of months ago, as I understand it, and it’s unfortunate that the former Minister of Transport didn’t take the steps that the current Minister is taking to get this under way. I will put the Minister out of his misery and indicate that we will be supporting this bill—

Andy Foster: Oh, very good!

TANGI UTIKERE: —through to select committee, and I see our colleague over there, Mr Foster, who chairs the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, is delighted that that support is coming from this way as well.

This is something that we think will make a difference for communities around the country that face issues around traffic congestion. The Minister talked about the fact that when we turn our mind to other parts of the globe, often there is a little bit of reluctance around the implementation of some schemes. Certainly, there’s a lot of work that needs to happen before implementation takes place, but once these schemes are in place, generally they are supported as individuals go about their day, acknowledging that things do make a difference. That sense of acceptance is something that is seen all around the world.

I want to acknowledge, Mr Speaker, your own role in the previous Parliament when you chaired the Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry, and the members here in the House that were part of that inquiry team back in 2021. What it identified was the opportunity for a bipartisan approach to this issue. I’m proud of the fact, actually, that in Government, Labour did do most if not all of the groundwork around this policy, and in doing so we also sought the bipartisan sort of support from across the aisle to bring this to fruition. It’s unfortunate that that didn’t happen at the time, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Government seem very happy to want to progress this moving forward.

I do think it is really important that this is a scheme that is developed in consultation and via direct leadership with local communities and local council. One of the concerns that I do have in the bill as currently drafted is the stark ability of the Minister of Transport to just basically foist on to communities a charging scheme if, three years after commencement of this particular bill—or Act, as it would be at that point—he or she or they believe that a charging scheme is possible or needed. I do think that there is huge benefit in ensuring that those decisions—when it comes to time of use charging schemes, and operation and implementation—is dealt with by local communities as a particular driver of that.

The other reason why it’s important this is not seen as a revenue gathering exercise is, currently, the Government have a $6 billion hole in their transport financial plan. We certainly hope that in avenues like this they’re not seeking to simply generate the revenue to address their inadequacies when it comes to being able to undertake basic mathematics and make things add up.

The other issue that I want to just touch on briefly is the concern around what the balance of the money that would be basically brought in from the schemes would be used for. Currently, the bill as drafted indicates that it could be used for any measure of land transport activities. I think it’s really important that that equity space is given absolute focus and consideration: that where there would be a time of use charging component applied to any stretch of road in this country there are opportunities for alternatives—they must be free alternatives—but also that there is a focus on ensuring there is revenue set aside and redirected to ensure that those equity considerations are given a primary focus; that it’s not actually just about the necessary option of perhaps the Government of the day wanting to spend money on more roads but that it is about active transport opportunities, it is about public transport opportunities, it is about other modes and methods that would ensure that equity is not only something that is considered but something that can actually be played out in a complementary way.

As I say, we will support this bill at this stage. I look forward to working with other colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee as this is progressed. It is a good committee that is very collegial and I’m sure we will hear lots of submissions and submitters, and I do hope that the Government is open to changing aspects of the bill to ensure that it’s workable, it’s fair, and at the end of the day it meets the needs that are required in the circumstance. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party has long stood for policies that will deliver more livable cities with affordable housing and transport options that help protect the climate and keep air clean and healthy, and all of that is better for livability. That’s why, when I came to Aotearoa in 2006 studying a Master of urban planning, I was quickly attracted to the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the only party at the time really talking about the issues that matter, like climate change and reducing inequality, and the practical solutions for achieving those outcomes.

In 2006, there was a report on congestion pricing in Auckland and I remember it being on the front page of the New Zealand Herald. I remember commenting, as we did back in the day, on comments on the website, before they got too toxic to be constructive, and making the case for why congestion pricing was a good idea. Of course, the framing of the article was all negative at the time. And, of course, that was nearly 20 years ago and we’re only now seeing a bill introduced.

The Green Party, at the time that I joined, I think was the only political party that actually proactively had investigated congestion pricing schemes where they would be appropriate in cities in New Zealand, so I think, like with the capital gains tax, we were at the vanguard of sensible economic policies. For the longest time, when people asked me about this, what I would also say is that really only a handful of cities in the world have brought in congestion pricing, even now. For the longest time, it was Stockholm, Gothenburg, the City of London, Singapore, and Milan, and now very, very recently, New York City finally got it over the line.

There’s a significant difference between all of those cities and Auckland. One is that they have much higher density of employment and people living in the city. Of course, that’s changed a lot in Auckland over the last 30 years thanks to more permissive zoning, but they have higher density, much greater use of public transport, because it’s more frequent and it’s more affordable, and they also have a much smaller supply of car parking and much higher prices to use car parking. It does make sense to do all of those things first; that is, allow higher density, invest in public transport, invest in people-oriented streets, walking and cycling, and include sensible approaches to parking management, including pricing the use of parking, before you go to congestion pricing. That said, the Green Party is supportive of this bill as drafted to select committee.

There are many other cities in the world that have used different types of pricing, and we heard at the select committee last term when we had the inquiry into congestion pricing that experts from around the world were recommending to us that our legislation should be flexible enough to allow low-emission zones as well. When we talk about low-emission zones, that’s important from a carbon emissions point of view, but it’s also air quality, because it turns out that the diesel particulates from traffic are far more harmful to human health than people have realised, and it’s been pretty much unregulated in New Zealand and is definitely having an impact on childhood asthma and on lives. Probably more lives are lost due to poor air quality due to cars and trucks in Aotearoa New Zealand than even in crashes on the road. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this legislation allows for low-emission zones.

Our other concern with this legislation is that it doesn’t, I think, sufficiently empower the municipal transport authority—that is, Auckland Transport and the city of Auckland—to manage how all of this is running. It’s very centralised—and really, these urban transport solutions need to be solved; they need to be managed at the level of the city. That’s the level at which people are voting for them. I think that the last Minister of Transport spent a whole year editing this legislation that was probably ready to go under the last Labour Government, making it far more centralised, giving far more control to central government. I think that’s going to be problematic. I think it’ll be less likely that the local councils will take it up unless we have some practical changes there.

Yes, it’s true that the State highway is owned by the New Zealand Transport Agency and central government, but, ultimately, the congestion is caused by cars and trucks making local trips on the State highway, and the alternatives to those local trips need to be provided before we bring in the congestion pricing—that’s buses, trains, walking, and cycling. All of that has to be provided by the council, and that’s why I think that’s the appropriate level for investment to be made.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad to rise and speak on behalf of ACT on this Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. As a feeling of camaraderie and support breaks out across the House, ACT too will be supporting this bill and it’s—

Hon Member: Oh, very good.

CAMERON LUXTON: Yes, isn’t that great news? It’s an expansion on what’s in the coalition agreement, what was already agreed to by coalition parties, so we’re seeing this go further. I must also say congratulations has to be given to the former chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who undertook work on this in 2021, and to the Opposition whose work while in Government has contributed to this piece of legislation.

I stand as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and also a resident of Tauranga, and I think the Tauranga experience is quite illustrative in this example. Tauranga has got two toll roads, soon to be three. Now, paying for road use is something that the people of Tauranga have become well accustomed to. In fact, it’s frequently a subject of conversation, of how much the rest of the country could benefit from having the pricing mechanism providing for a signal to the market on where roads are needing to be built. For example, people of Tauranga were extremely pleased to have a chance to have the Tauranga Eastern Link brought on sooner, through paying for a toll, and also Takitimu Drive tolled originally. That was led by local government, much like this bill is thinking of doing; having local government input saying, “This is where we think we could do with congestion charging; we want to see something happen.”

That’s what happened on what was formerly called Route K—now Takitimu Link—and the future road, Takitimu Northern Link, which will head out towards Te Puna and link up the north-western Bay of Plenty with the commerce capital and export port capital of New Zealand, Tauranga, which, I have to say, is one of the best places on earth, except for one small thing: we do have a bit of congestion in Tauranga, and that congestion does happen along State highways. It happens along Hewletts Road, which is a part of State Highway 2; it happens on State Highway 29 coming into Tauranga. These sort of places could benefit from having a bit of signalling to the market to say, “Look, we are happy to pay to be able to use these roads as a tradie to get out to a job or to get somewhere that we need to go at a certain period of time, at a cost that reflects a signal to the market of what we’re trying to do here.” But, also, if you don’t want to pay, “time of use” means just switch your time; shift your timing.

That is the signal, the information that is being delivered by this sort of legislation and this sort of policy. I hark back to my farming days, where it was often a conversation that many farmers had of “Should we become winter milk suppliers?” Now, the reason that is something that people thought about was because you could get a premium for your milk. You could get paid a little bit more for supplying milk in what was either the shoulder or the really low seasons of milk supply. That meant that we had—and similar to how we have roading infrastructure that is underutilised at certain parts of the days—stainless steel, or have stainless steel, tied up in milk factories up and down this country, which is underutilised at the shoulders of the season and in the winter time when the grass isn’t growing as strongly as it does around balance day. What we end up with is underutilised resource similar to roads in the middle of the day and over-utilised resource when the spring flushes on and milk’s pouring into the vat. That’s what I would say the analogy to the road is around peak times.

What this is talking about is sending a signal; similar to winter milk, it’s sending a signal, saying, “Pay a little bit more, we’ll get your milk in the winter, and you can try and move that production to those seasons.” We want to see people say, “Look, I think it’s a better use of my time to go out and use the roads at a time that isn’t the peak.”, and that means that people who do think it’s worth their while—tradies, people who need to get to jobs and businesses and schools and places of work at a specific time—can see the benefit in that and pay that fee.

To the Tauranga experience, we did have the Tauranga commissioners who put out a discussion paper, a discussion in the public around congestion charging. I was very much in favour of that. I think what we need to do and what has been exhibited here across the House is a sense of unity on this. I hope that continues through the select committee stage so that we can have a solid policy that goes out to the public, and really get the best use out of our national infrastructure.

Look, thanks, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to support this first reading, and it’s good to see the support around the House. This has been on the table for quite some time, as we’ve already heard. In fact, Wellington—not just Wellington City but the Wellington region—and Auckland in particular have been asking for it. Actually, I can remember we’ve already had the reference to the inquiry that was done which—in fact, Mr Speaker, I think I can use “you” in this context—you chaired in your previous role and making a submission, Wellington City and Greater Wellington at the same time, to say, “Hey, we actually support this as a tool to put into the tool kit.” It’s not the only answer to issues around congestion but it is an important tool, so it’s great to see this here and to see the support here.

I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things. First of all, the Hon Julie Anne Genter talked about getting other things right and having public transport and other means of transport right. That’s really, really important—also getting our urban form right. It’s really interesting to see—and I think about this in the context of housing and housing provision—the first line of the explanatory note says, “New Zealand’s largest cities face significant traffic congestion compared to cities with similar population densities.” What this is, basically, saying is we’ve got other cities around the world which don’t face such a challenge, but what we’ve done is we’ve spread our cities out. I think there is a warning there that, while it might make it cheaper, there’s also a cost to spreading out in terms of our cities. That cost is borne in congestion and the cost of infrastructure.

This is taking a targeted approach. It’s about making sure that, at times and places where there is congestion, that’s where you might apply this. You wouldn’t apply it across the board. You’d think about the cities where there is congestion. I’ve already mentioned Auckland and Wellington. We’ve had the mention from my friend Cam Luxton about Tauranga as well. There’ll be a few places where this makes sense. There are many places where that would not cut the mustard and you wouldn’t do it.

It’s interesting also to reflect that the Infrastructure Commission—who, I think, gives us really, really good advice—has also suggested that pricing across the board, and where there’s peak demand, not just for roading services or transport services but peak demand, we should put a price on that peak demand. We’ve already had that reference to milk, but it might apply to other resources as well—for example, power. We do that at the moment for a lot of our power use.

The Minister, when he was introducing the bill, said that the thought was around 10 percent reduction in traffic volumes. That, actually, is really, really significant. In the suburb which I come from there’s a difference of about 10 percent between the term time and the holiday time, and that makes all the difference in the world. What you have is free-flow holiday time, congestion during term time. That 10 percent makes a significant difference. This is real. The information there also says that the cost to Auckland, we’ve already heard, is $2.6 billion. While taxes aren’t very popular, neither is congestion. Nobody likes sitting in congestion for a long period of time.

A couple of other things I did want to talk about. One is that the cost of the schemes is going to be important, because these things are not going to be simple to put in place. There’s a consultation process. There’ll be a lot of design which needs to go into it. What time, what roads, what areas need to be covered. I do think—and I think Tangi Utikere has given us a little bit of a warning on that—the idea of central government coming down on top and saying, “Let’s go and design a scheme for any place.” might be a little bit challenging and might not work terribly well. This has got to be done with local government and, equally importantly, with local communities.

One other thing I would say about councils involved here is that councils should not be deliberately creating congestion to be able to warrant a time of use scheme. I have seen councils not too far from here who might actually deliberately try and create congestion. That probably would not go down terribly well. I’m looking forward very much to the submissions and to working through the detail. We do have a very collegial approach on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It is good to see all the parties who are members of that committee supporting this, and I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I stand as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau and on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.

The bill unfairly burdens our most vulnerable: whānau Māori, tangata moana, low-income workers, and those who have been locked out of public transport due to this Government’s decisions. The Government claims congestion charging will reduce emissions and improve productivity, but what they fail to acknowledge is that the charge is a tax on those who often have no other choice. It is our cleaners, our caregivers, our construction workers, many of whom are Māori and Pacific whānau, who will feel this the most. These are the essential workers who cannot shift their work, which I heard a previous member talk about. Shifting your work is not that easy for our whānau—the hours; you know, we just can’t do that. Instead of investing in affordable alternatives, this Government has made it harder for them to get around.

Last year, the Government scrapped the half-price public transport subsidy. That decision alone made it more expensive for whānau to get to work, to kura, and to the doctor. Now, with this bill, they are adding another cost on top of that. What choice does a single parent in South Auckland have when buses are infrequent and unreliable? What choice does a kaumātua in West Auckland have when their local train services have been cut? This is not congestion pricing; it is poverty pricing. The evidence backs this up.

The Covec MRCagney report Congestion pricing in Auckland found that low-income households will face higher costs as a percentage of their income, compared to wealthier households. It also found that those on lower incomes are more likely to suppress trips altogether, meaning that they will miss out on employment, education, and their doctors appointments, all because this Government think they cannot make another dollar out of the struggling. There are so many families in Tāmaki Makaurau who haven’t even gone over the harbour bridge. This is transport injustice, plain and simple. In Aotearoa, where transport poverty is already a crisis, this bill will only widen existing inequalities.

The Government argues that the revenue raised will be reinvested in transport, but history tells us otherwise. The reality is that without a clear commitment to equity, this bill will depend on the transport divide that already exists in our city. Instead of congestion charging, the Government should focus on transport solutions that uplift communities, not penalise them. We need fair, free public transport, better services in regions, and meaningful investment in infrastructure that serves the people who need it the most. That is how we address congestion—by giving people real options, not by punishing them in circumstances beyond their control.

Congestion pricing as it stands is another example of a policy that is blind to the realities of working class and Māori communities. If this Government truly cares about congestion, it must ensure that any charges come with real public transport improvements, targeted financial relief for low-income whānau, and meaningful engagement with those whose pockets it will affect the most.

Tēnei pire he raupatu hou. [This bill is a new confiscation.] This bill is another tax on our people, disguised as progress. If this Government truly cared about congestion, it would invest in public transport first, rather than punishing those with no alternative. We must oppose this bill until equity and fairness are at its centre. Tēnā koutou katoa.

It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill, which is part of the solution to reducing congestion. I just want to reiterate for the House today that congestion is a tax on New Zealand’s economy—in Auckland alone, $2.6 billion by 2026—but it’s also a tax on mental health and a tax on livability. This is a good bill—a good bill—that will reduce congestion, improve productivity, optimise our roading network, and improve mental health and wellbeing.

It is, as the Minister said, really about using the market mechanism, and it’s pleasing to see the other side of the House welcoming the use of market mechanisms to solve problems. The evidence base for all this comes from overseas cities: Singapore, Stockholm, Dubai, and Seoul.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What’s the public transport like there?

DAN BIDOIS: I think this is a really good bill, but it is only part of the solution. And, yes, public transport is part of it, but it’s also making sure that local authorities trial new ideas to improve congestion on our local and national roads as well.

I am a member of the hard-working Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Andy Foster here. I’m looking forward to receiving this bill and to interrogating the details further, and, to what the member from the Māori Party, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, said, to understanding the risks for working class members in our cities across the country and to making sure that it is workable, that it minimises risk not just for workers but also for small businesses, who are doing it tough out there at the moment.

Most importantly, this isn’t going to be a solution that is going to be able to be rolled out nationwide. There will really be limited cities that will take advantage of this, certainly Auckland and Wellington—a member from the ACT Party mentioned Tauranga—but I’m really keen to see what other cities may be interested in applying this, and also within cities, how this bill will be applied.

Take Auckland, for example: there are classic places on State Highway 1 where this could be rolled out, or State Highway 16. In my community, in Northcote, there’s congestion on our main arterial roads, which we may wish to consider. As a member of the select committee, I’ll be wanting to understand the impact on small businesses, those that have to travel far and that work in predominantly blue-collar professions, and how that will be rolled out.

This is a good bill. It is a bill that just provides the framework—the framework—for local authorities to apply time of use charging to their local areas. This is not about revenue gathering. All the funds that are gathered through time of use charging will be reinvested back into the local areas, which is great news for places like Auckland. I note that the mayor, Wayne Brown, is a strong advocate for time of use charging being applied to Auckland.

It is a rare moment where we have near-unanimous favourable votes in the House today, and I would encourage my colleagues from the Māori Party to join the waka—there is still time—because this, I think, is a good bill and a good bill that addresses a very significant challenge facing our cities up and down the country. As I said, it’s a tax on productivity, it’s a tax on our economy, but it’s also a tax on mental health wellbeing.

On behalf of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I look forward to welcoming submissions. If you are listening to this at home, you can go online very shortly and make a submission as part of this process. I commend this bill to the House today.

Congestion sucks. It sucks 2½ hours out of the day of a tradie from Manurewa who’s working in town. He might be working in Henderson, might be working in Māngere—2½, three hours gone from his day. It sucks two hours out of a parent’s day that they could otherwise be spending with their kids at the end of the day, but instead they’re in their car. It sucks the joy out of living in the Auckland suburbs.

I live in the best place to live in the country. Manurewa is a paradise. Hillpark, where I live, is the best place to live in the country. We’ve got the bush, we’ve got the native birds, and we’ve got the bus station in the town five minutes from where I live, with the library, but you cannot live there and work in town if you won’t sign up for 1½ hours on the way in, and 1½ hours back. It’s no good. We need to fix this. This is a bill that does that, and that’s why I support it, but I’ve still got questions about how it’ll apply to those people in Manurewa. It needs the kind of controls that will make sure that it is fair for everyone, and that there are viable alternatives.

I looked today at the reporting from Auckland Council, and we’ve got Mayor Wayne Brown saying it’s costing Auckland $2.6 billion each year by 2026. This congestion problem is huge, and it will only get worse if we don’t have these tools, and we absolutely need them, but when I looked through that report, I thought about the alternatives that are being proposed by Auckland Council. The alternatives are obviously more public transport, and access via the train and bus, and making choices like carpooling, and travelling outside of peak times. Those are all really good options for people, but there are some people who won’t be able to use those, and we need to keep thinking about how to design a system which is fair for them—fair for shift workers like people who cannot choose when they travel, and how they travel, and are needing to get to work at times when there are no other colleagues that they can go with.

Some businesses in South Auckland will actually put on transport for their workers because there aren’t good enough public transport options, and that’s important, but those workers who don’t work for a business like that, who can’t put on those kinds of services, that is one of the number one issues that I encounter when I’m out door knocking in a place like Wiri, where manufacturing workers are going to work at different times every week depending on their roster and do not have other options, with the dearth of transport options there.

We also need to make sure that we’re asking the questions of this Government that it has the right system in place to support these kinds of congestion charges. It’s one thing to levy charges on people and demand behavioural change, but when the behavioural change happens, have you got what it takes to actually get people into the centre of the city? Are we going to see projects like the Northern Busway—great, great project; very effective transport project—and projects like the Eastern Busway hugely upping demand there and ending up in bus congestion if there are no other options for people? Will we end up with a Government that has actually hiked public transport fares; said it’s going to build new roads as its priority and, furthermore, levy taxes on the Uber drivers who might be an alternative by levying charges on electric vehicles? Those are the alternatives, but this Government is turning the dial down on them.

We need some answers about how this is actually going to be supported for behavioural change if behavioural change is in fact the thing that we’re going for here. I look forward to a select committee process where we can actually dive into the detail of this, because it will take bipartisan effort. It will take cross-partisan effort. I also welcome the comments of the Greens, because there has to be alternatives for people if we’re going to use regulatory tools like this to drive behaviour, because we are—let’s be frank—telling people that they should change their behaviour. It is up to the Government to actually make that possible for people to do—people with disabilities, kaumātua, kuia, people who do not have other options currently and deserve them.

This Government taking money out of public transport and re-prioritising it into roads needs to actually front on those issues which are facing central Auckland now. They need to be able to give Auckland Council the ability to design not only this programme—which in the empowering legislation does propose a lot of licence for councils—but also the powers for Auckland Transport to actually get people where they need to go with appropriate fares, appropriate routes, and a well-funded system that has to be backed by Government to make something like this work. I’m excited to get into this; chair Andy Foster has his work cut out for him. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on this. This has been signalled for a long time, particularly from the infrastructure consultancy groups, and so it’s great to see our Government just getting on and doing it, and also great to see the support from the other side of the House, of course.

As the Minister mentioned, congestion is really a tax on time, and also the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Andy Foster, made a really good analogy—when we’re travelling in peak traffic, and I think of the great suburb or electorate of Hamilton East between sort of 6.45 a.m. to 7 a.m. and about 9.15 a.m. peak traffic, particularly on school days. I’m not necessarily saying this will be a solution for Hamilton, but you can see the effectiveness, or change, rather, of peak and off-peak traffic flows.

This is, again, like a lot of our policies and decisions, a tool in the tool box. It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s another option that can help massage or feather the intensity of peak traffic flows. This is a tool that, like congestion being a tax on time, can be an option that will make people rethink about travel arrangements. They’ve got an option of whether they can afford to pay the little bit extra because it’s worth it and built into a business model, or they’ll look at car pooling or public transport, or maybe starting earlier and finishing earlier. There’s a myriad of options.

This is just another tool in the tool box that we’ll be keen to explore through the select committee process. I look forward to that committee feeding back to the House and letting us know how those submissions pan out. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good this afternoon to be able to speak to this piece of legislation on the time of use charging. This is one of the most constructive things that we can do in this Parliament to decongest our largest city in Aotearoa: Auckland.

If I go back to 2021, we had a wonderful chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and we opened up an inquiry because we knew we were short of solutions at the time. We needed feedback from key stakeholders, the public, and from councils to say how we actually address the congestion challenge in front of us. We put to Aotearoa New Zealand the idea of congestion charging across a number of cities, but particularly we had a focus on Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland. Overwhelmingly, people recognised that we had a congestion problem. In fact, once again this week, we saw the largest amount of congestion in “March madness”—reported, of course.

The other thing that people said is that it is a cost on Aucklanders. I acknowledge today that, around the House, generally we agree that this is a really good thing. The Government members are talking about a tax on time, but we do need to recognise, actually, that this is a tax on Aucklanders. It’s a tax on Aucklanders because it costs them money to get from A to B. The reality is that for those that choose to travel at peak time, it will halve congestion. It will be just like what we experience in school holidays—if we’re going down Onewa Road across to the city, then that will be the experience that will change for many that will use it.

We heard from countries overseas. We heard from Stockholm; I had the opportunity to travel to Vancouver to see how they were implementing congestion charging. They were very clear that change is instant on the day that congestion charging is introduced, but there will be a reaction from the public; that we, as members who are supporting this bill, will be challenged by that; and Government members do need to hold their nose and move through it and support this because it will be the change that we need to achieve in our city.

Back in 2021, when we launched this inquiry, things were quite different. The Government of the day were investing largely in public transport, in active walking and cycling measures; that we were on the road to put half-price public transport and free public transport in place for under-13s. Those are the types of initiatives that supported things like congestion charging to be implemented. If we seek to achieve the behaviour change and we use this as a demand management tool, then there needs to be good alternatives in place to motivate people and actually to support them to get from A to B. At the moment, the Government of this day has taken away many of those measures.

Part of my concern, and where I will be looking at the select committee process, is how do we ensure that not only does the revenue that this generates go back into our largest city—into Auckland—but also that it’s invested back into public transport. Auckland Council were very clear on this; they want us to see that investment in public transport and walking and cycling to give people alternative modes to get around our city.

My other concern here is that the Government says this isn’t about revenue generation, but we do have a reality in front of us. They committed in the last election to repeal the fuel excise scheme, the regional fuel tax, in Auckland. They did that, but that left us with a $1.2 billion hole in dedicated transport infrastructure investment in Auckland. Those projects have now been shelved; they are no longer available, and so, again, I come back to those alternatives that are no longer there.

Alone, I agree with Government members that this isn’t just one tool to fix congestion. What I’m looking for is what are the other tools alongside that that they are putting in place to ensure that Aucklanders have meaningful alternatives to take, at a lower cost, to get them from A to B in the speed that they want to. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Like many others here today, it’s a great privilege to be talking about the time of use pricing legislation that is having its first reading almost unanimously across the House. What a great day.

Some of us who were around local government and working in mayors’ offices over 20 years ago were excited when the transport Minister of the day, Paul Swain, through the Land Transport Management Act, was keen to introduce congestion charging and the possibility of tolling. That 2003 legislation never really quite delivered. If you’re looking through the Land Transport Management Act now, there have been various versions to get it up to a position where public-private partnerships are enabled. Now, with this amendment, it will allow for the development of time of use schemes.

This, as I said, is 20 years in the making. I remember when Michael Barnett, chair of commerce, and others were talking about $1 billion in wasted time and wasted fuel in Auckland. Now the report released by Auckland Council today talks about $2.6 billion by 2026, and that’s just in Auckland alone. As has been articulated, Mayor Wayne Brown backs it. In fact, the headline at 3.15 on the New Zealand Herald: “Mayor Wayne Brown backs congestion charge amid $2.6 billion traffic cost”. Brown said traffic costs businesses and Aucklanders alike and it needed to be fixed in order to get growth in the city. “A time of use charge will enable people to think of other ways to travel, like public transport, carpooling or driving outside rush hour.” We’ve got to acknowledge that work flexibility these days enables many people to just alter their car movements, their truck movements, slightly to work around this.

There was concern raised that perhaps this Government wasn’t going to be investing in the multimodal options that motorists needed as a viable alternative if they weren’t prepared to pay for time of use charging. Well, can I remind the Opposition about the Eastern Busway that we are committed to building. Can I remind the Opposition about John Key and Simon Bridges and others pulling the lever on the City Rail Link. And can I remind the Opposition of this Government’s commitment to the dedicated northwestern bus corridor. There will be alternatives in place. We are committed to a multimodal system in Auckland and in other places, and we are committed to partnership with local government to ensure the design that will be overseen by NZTA and community input through the land transport schemes that both deliver up through regional land transport policies. It’s with great delight that the National Party, in conjunction with ACT and New Zealand First, get this done.

We remember the Labour Party in August 2023, and some of them were over there in front of the Harbour Bridge—remember that? They were going to deliver the $56 billion plan to replace the bridge. I thought maybe I got that number wrong. I just googled it. Oh, yeah, it was $56 billion. It was talked from the tops of the cliffs down at the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron—$56 billion plan. It was going to be like spaghetti put over the North Shore. It was going to see trams—Dan Bidois, can you believe this?—up Glenfield Road. This was pie in the sky stuff. Thankfully, with this Government, we’re back to the basics, we’re back to core business, and we’re back to something that 90 percent of Aucklanders have wanted for 20 years—it’s time of use charging. I commend the bill.

The question is, That the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.