Horan Brendan: Road User Charges Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Road User Charges Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:366. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Road User Charges Bill. It is very interesting that the honourable Jami-Lee Ross has done a little bit of research. I would like to remind members that actions have consequences and the consequences of this bill could be far-reaching indeed for the citizens of New Zealand. And I would remind members that consultation is one thing but listening and taking heed are entirely another.  
This is New Zealand First’s first vote on the bill and we oppose it. After careful scrutiny and after considering items that are transported by diesel—everything from people public transport users and schoolchildren to inanimate objects such as building products chemicals and medicines; then we have household rubbish and everything on the supermarket shelf—New Zealand First also entered into discussions and listened to affected and concerned parties within the industry including road transport freight owners crane operators trucking firms large livestock-carrying firms horse trainers individual truck owner-operators and members and representatives of the Motor Caravan Association. Now without exception everyone spoken to expressed grave reservations on this bill in the areas of fairness and expense.  
It is also a bill that it is fair to say many in the industry know very little about. It has been stated that the purpose of the bill is to modernise and simplify the road-user charges system to eliminate the scope for error and fraud. Upon first inspection despite a failure to prove systematic fraud surrounding road-user charges a rather heavy-handed approach seems to have been followed in penalising everyone for the unsubstantiated presumed fraudulent behaviour of a few.  
There are other goals and they are to reduce administration complexity reduce compliance costs and simplify enforcement. New Zealand First believes that the bill has far-reaching implications that will have a negative impact within our New Zealand society in terms of fairness affordability safety and even environmental considerations. Let us first consider fairness. The honourable members Shane Jones and Phil Twyford both expressed their reservations with regard to the effects on small businesses and motorhome owners and one should respect their experience.  
We ask whether it is fair for small trucking operators such as furniture movers who transport large bulky items such as mattresses pillows and sofas—and they are not necessarily heavy objects. Pray tell how will they be able to operate profitably when they will be charged every day for heavier loads than they will probably ever carry? Is it fair to skip operators who drop off an empty skip to most building sites in New Zealand return empty to their yard and then drive empty to collect a full skip? Surely we can find a better more equitable way than to charge full-load prices on every trip. These increases will undoubtedly trickle down to the end-user and add to building costs in the New Zealand housing industry.  
New Zealand First has concerns for the 22000 motorhome owners registered with the Motor Caravan Association. In talks with them they question the fairness of suddenly having their road-user charges increased—mostly doubled and in some cases trebled—because of new band widths and maximum permissible on-road weight charges when their weight is constant and in most cases considerably less than their maximum chassis weight. There are other considerations amongst motorhome owners in their contribution to internal tourism. This can be seen in the many rallies that the Motor Caravan Association holds throughout New Zealand every weekend in our cities and small towns adding to the economies of those areas. Many motorhome owners are pensioners and dramatic increases will affect their discretionary spend and also potentially affect the resale of their motorhomes. So New Zealand First cannot in good conscience do a Pontius Pilate here and have these clear failings in the bill left to the Minister of Transport to sort out.  
There are similar obstacles in this bill for those in the racing industry where we have horse trucks continually loading and offloading animals and their frustration with the administration. We have buses refrigerator units and many others. There are many truckies who have invested considerable sums to purchase B train units to enable them to compete within the current sense-making framework of the current legislation. What about them? These multi-wheeled vehicles are safer because more axles distribute the load meaning safer driving. If this bill is passed these operators will need full loads both ways to compete and in some cases to stay in business. This bill could very well be the catalyst that leads to every truck on the road carrying maximum loads leading to worse wear and tear on our highways and obvious safety issues. It also has the potential to lead to more smaller trucks on the roads again travelling with maximum weights and the challenges that I have expressed that that brings.  
So although this bill started with the very best of intentions there are many holes that—pardon the pun—you could drive a truck through provided you could afford the road charges. To date I have highlighted the injustice of this bill and in the same vein I would ask the parties to consider the social ramifications that drill right down from exporters and importers to the average man and woman on the street with the flow-on cost effect. Large or small goods—even a humble can of peas—travel by truck at least 10 times from seed until they reach a supermarket shelf. Now obviously the cost is going to go to the end-user and with affordability stretched one wonders how the average Kiwi mum and dad will be able to afford to buy those asset shares that we hear so much about from this National-led Government.  
There are also environmental concerns. At a time when we are trying to encourage people into public transport how can we introduce a cost increase to public transport and school buses? New Zealand First is not here just to oppose; we suggest a more equitable system of levying that is not one of one-size-fits-all. The solution may be to look at charges at the pump. There is a simple formula here and that is diesel is fuel fuel is proportional to horsepower and horsepower is directly proportional to weight. So the more weight you pull the more fuel you need. By addressing the issue at the pumps we would cut compliance costs and do away with administrative complexity and any requirement for legal enforcement.  
There could also be concessions for environmentally friendly engines. The new diesel engines are more environmentally friendly than ever before and surely we should be encouraging innovation and creativity. Now one of the flaws of this system is that the fishing and shipping industries do not use the roads but surely it is a path that could do with investigation and robust discussion. So on behalf of all of those in New Zealand who have expressed their concerns about this bill New Zealand First opposes it for the above reasons. Thank you.