O'Connor Damien: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5356] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I might have the last say today which would be quite an honour. I say that we should congratulate National for this legislation. I think it is good legislation for a couple of reasons. One of them deals with the dilemma that whenever a Government announces an increase in road-user charges with any lead-in time there is a rush to buy those road-user charges with the corresponding loss of potential revenue to the Crown. That has always been a bit of a dilemma. When my colleague the Hon Annette King attempted to increase road-user charges—in a way it was necessary to pay for road funding across this country—without any notice we had a massive uproar up and down the country. 
This Road User Charges Amendment Bill establishes a compromise situation whereby the maximum period for which road-user charges may be purchased from the time of notice will be 42 days. There is a lead-in time people have the warning and if they have not used the charges then they can apply for a refund. The Government should be congratulated on doing that. 
The next thing the Government should be congratulated on is its new wisdom. It has finally accepted that there is an issue of climate change in this country. That is quite amazing really. We must acknowledge educational progress whenever it occurs because in May 2005 National’s learned leader John Key said about climate change: “This is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billons and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem.” Of course he did learn and in 2006 in one of the classic Key flip-flops he said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” That was a revelation to the country I would have to say. So in the spirit— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: He never said climate change was a hoax. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is exactly what he said and that member should go and read history. That flip-flop has allowed the introduction of this bill and I congratulate the Government because it is one step down the path to recognising not only that we have an issue internationally but also that we should do smart things to try to reduce our emissions. 
What the Government is doing is reducing the road-user charges on electric vehicles. That seems like a great idea. I believe that the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith has an electric vehicle; I am not sure how many other Ministers do. I am not sure whether that means he should declare a conflict of interest when passing this bill; it should perhaps be stated upfront. I am not sure whether any other members in this House have an electric vehicle. If they have then they should say so when they are speaking on this legislation. That Minister has; I do not know whether he has stated it. Anyway we move on. 
It is a principled issue and I acknowledge that this is smart legislation. But it is not perfect at all. The thing about the business people in the National Party of course is that they will often and with some justification say: “We want the Government out of our business. We just want to get on with the job of business. We do not want subsidies. We do not want handouts.” Well what we see in this legislation is indeed a cross-subsidy. It is a cross-subsidy from those people who pay for the roads to those people who are in a position to assist with climate change. I think we accept that it is a reasonable cross-subsidy because we have to do something about climate change. But the reality of course is that we are doing it only for those people who can afford to pay twice as much for an electric vehicle. We have to be mindful of that. 
The points made by my colleagues were very sound ones. This bill will mean cross-subsidisation because the poorer people who will have to drive petrol cars—and indeed hybrid cars which is an issue I will come back to—will be paying full road-user charges and paying for the roading network in this country. Those who can afford to have an electric car will not have to pay for the roading network. We all need it we all utilise it and we all benefit from it so there is a question of whether that subsidy should apply. I say that perhaps it should for the greater good of reducing our overall carbon emissions. 
But the question I would then ask is what about hybrid vehicles? Because hybrid vehicles are lower-emitting vehicles and so too are small diesel vehicles should we look at the road-user charges for those vehicles? Why did the Government not include those vehicles in this legislation? I believe that small diesel vehicles should be exempt from road-user charges. In the way that we are trying to incentivise the uptake and purchase of electric vehicles we should be doing the same for small diesel vehicles and for hybrid vehicles. Why did the Government not go that far? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Because they don’t exist. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The member says that small diesel vehicles do not exist. The member should get out there and look around. There are hybrid petrol vehicles and there are small diesel vehicles both types of which are far more lower-emitting vehicles than the conventional petrol ones that most of us drive. We need to move in that direction and I think the approximately $400-plus a year subsidy that we will be giving through this legislation over a 12000 kilometre a year average is a reasonable incentive. It is a gesture and I think it is one that we should make from Parliament but we should also make the gesture for those people who buy small diesel vehicles. Those vehicles are a little louder and a little noisier but they are lower-emitting and many of them now of course have outstanding performance. There is little reason not to purchase them. If the change in legislation and the reduction in the road-user charges is the tipping point then the Government should have looked at that as well. 
Part of the problem of course is that the Government rushed this legislation through. The Government did not hear submissions on this legislation. Had it done so it would no doubt have heard some of those sensible and logical points when they were brought to the table. We have to be a little smarter in the way we impose charges so that we incentivise better behaviour. In fact the emissions trading scheme is all about that. The member on that side of the Chamber has to learn a lot when he comes to this House—that through Parliament we try to promote good behaviour but we do not ignore opportunities that are before us. 
I say that the Government in passing this good legislation could have passed better legislation. The Government could have included light diesel vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Why did it not do that? I think it is an insult to all those people who have made the effort to lower their emissions by purchasing those vehicles often at greater expense that the National Government has ignored what they have been attempting to do to lower our national emissions—some of them for many many years. 
 I say again that I congratulate the Government on acknowledging that there is a climate change issue. John Key has finally got it in spite of saying in May 2005 that it is a complete and utter hoax. It is one of many many flip-flops from the Prime Minister. Thankfully this one has moved in the right direction. 
The flip-flop that says “We will not privatise State assets.” will be one that will take this country down the gurgler. We should wait until that occurs. We are not hoping that it will occur but I bet that that is what will happen. John Key and the way he has flip-flopped on so many things will mean that he will flip-flop on the privatisation of State assets. The roads and many of the infrastructural assets of this country that the road-user charges have paid for will be privatised for private benefit. I say that the passage of this legislation is a good move but it could have been so much better.