Hipkins Chris: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:676;Page:21766] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Part 2 is the guts of this bill and it deals particularly with an issue that I have some concern about which is the moving from calculating road-user charges based on nominated weights to one based on maximum gross weights. To put that in a nutshell at the moment if somebody owns a fairly heavy truck then basically they estimate what they are going to be carrying—let us say any sort of truck—and they might carry 3 tonnes one day and 5 tonnes another day. They will pay the road-user charges for the number of kilometres they are expected to do at a certain weight. This change means they will pay road-user charges for the maximum weight of the vehicle regardless of the load that they are carrying. This is a significant departure in practice from what we currently have and it is one that I am concerned about. Some trucking operators who have large vehicles that travel one way with a full load and return empty will end up paying significantly more. Under the present system they can travel one way with one set of road-user charges for the laden weight carrying the full load and they can return empty or with a lighter weight and they can pay less. If we are talking about a truck travelling from say Wellington to Auckland that is not an insubstantial distance—700 or 800 kilometres—and therefore they will buy their road-user charges at the different price for the different weights to reflect that. Under this rule change if they take a big truck from Wellington to Auckland with a full load and they bring it back to Wellington empty they will pay the same road-user charges regardless even though clearly the wear and tear on the road will be significantly less from an empty truck than from a very full one. 
It will also mean that companies that have trucks that are used for a variety of different carrying purposes—some days they will be carrying a very large load and some days they will be carrying a smaller load—can accommodate that at the moment with the existing road-user charges regime. Under this regime they will not be able to do that. So we will see companies having to change the make-up of their fleets which is potentially quite a significant cost for some trucking companies. I think we will see a move to more smaller trucks on the road rather than a greater number of larger trucks on the road and more distance being travelled by those smaller trucks simply because if they are having to pay the full cost even when the truck is partially empty many of the operators will decide that it is better to increase the number of journeys with a smaller truck rather than have a large truck that will end up being empty part of the time. So I am concerned about this particular change. Although I am concerned about the number of very heavy trucks that we have on the road—and I would like to see a reduction potentially in that number—goods have to get from A to B somehow and this change potentially increases costs significantly for a large number of industries in our country that we rely on. I will give members an example of a cattle truck. A cattle truck fully loaded with cattle will weigh more than an empty cattle truck. Under the current road-user charges regime that is allowed for; under this one it will not be. Operators of those trucks will be paying the maximum cost of the load for a full load of cattle even if they are not carrying a full load of cattle. 
David Bennett 
: They have to pay anyway. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: No under the current regime there is provision that if they wanted to they could prepay road-user charges for different weights for that truck. It is quite possible under this law that a number of trucking companies will end up— 
David Bennett 
: Book every truck one way then the other way? Yeah right! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am looking forward to David Bennett’s contribution to this debate. He obviously was not paying any attention to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when we discussed it even though he was chairing the meeting but that would not be particularly unusual in the case of David Bennett the member for wherever he is from. 
Darien Fenton 
: Not for much longer. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Not for much longer no. That is right. I think the Government needs to explain and to justify in greater detail why it wants to potentially increase significantly the costs for a number of our trucking operators. The Government has not made the case for why it wants to make this change. Government members argue that it will be more administratively efficient; I am not entirely sure that it will be. 
In fact one of the other changes in this bill introduces an electronic system for booking road-user charges. That is a really welcome move and we certainly support that. One of the reasons we support it is that it will make it more user-friendly and flexible for trucking companies so that they will be able to more easily book the required number of road-user charges that they need to pay for the different weights that the vehicles may be carrying. It seems that on the one hand we are moving to a system that offers more flexibility and on the other hand by moving the basis on which road-user charges are calculated from one that is quite sensible in my view based on estimated weights to one based on maximum weights we are actually taking that flexibility away again. That does not seem to make an awful lot of sense to me and that is the main change in this particular part that Labour members have significant concern about. 
The second aspect that we have significant concern about is the process by which these regulations will result in road-user charges rates being set. Road-user charges are of course a form of taxation. In the Labour members’ view that should be set by a bill through the House not by a regulation. The old saying in our view applies: no taxation without representation. Under this particular legislation taxation can be applied by the Government without going through this House—the people’s House—as all other Budget taxation measures need to. So we are opposed to that particular provision. 
There are many things in this bill that Labour members support. We want to see a crackdown on those who avoid paying their fair share of road-user charges. Trucking does result in significant wear and tear on our roads—possibly billions of dollars’ worth of wear and tear on our roads. It is only fair that those who are doing that pay their fair share. There is avoidance at the moment and we want to see that cracked down on. In fact I acknowledge that the Government wants to see that cracked down on. There are measures in this bill to do that and we wholeheartedly support those. There are many measures in the bill that we support. 
I mentioned briefly earlier the issue of electronic booking of road-user charges. I would like to see us in time get to the point where there is an online system which is much more flexible for companies where they can manage their own accounts online. That is where we could get to. I have a couple of trucking companies in my electorate and I have had a little bit to do with them over the period of time that I have been a member of Parliament. I know that they would like to have much more control over this area of their business. They have struggled with some of the regulatory framework and I think that many of the concerns that they have— 
David Bennett 
: You’re the mascot for the Irish rugby team. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —are being addressed by this bill. David Bennett would be well advised to calm down a little bit rather than interjecting and insulting me while I am speaking and giving credit to the Government for many of the provisions in this bill that I think are really good ones. He has gone all red and I know he gets very excited when people are talking about him because they do not talk about him where he comes from so he likes coming to Parliament where other people talk about him. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: The top of his head lights up. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: He literally lights up when we are talking about him and I know that he thoroughly enjoys that. 
I hope that the Minister will outline the Government’s case for why it wants to make this change from a system of calculating charges based on estimated weight to one based on maximum weight. I think it would be good if the Minister in the chair engaged in this particular part of the debate because that change is fundamentally the main point of contention in this bill. Most of the other provisions in the bill are ones that we support and as for the ones that we have some reservations about we would probably be willing to let them go if we could get some reasonable debate on this issue which is the most fundamental issue in the bill. I certainly hope that the Minister in due course as the debate progresses will take a call or two on this issue and set out the Government’s case on why it wants to do this. Thank you.