Jones Shane: Road User Charges Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Road User Charges Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16774] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
Kia ora ano tatou. Tena tatou katoa i tenei po. We support the Road User Charges Bill being referred to a select committee.  
As a brief outline of the history I say that we were very aware of how incendiary the criticisms were when the then Labour Government under the leadership of Helen Clark and Dr Michael Cullen sought to introduce a road-user charge. I have difficulty saying the word “RUC” in case I say the wrong consonant. Now we are giving a description of what might be done to Steven Joyce’s head by members of his own committee should they continue using a rugby analogy. We will hear from the member Michael Woodhouse as he tries to get answers from the Minister of Transport as to why a dodgy tender process went down for the trains—but that is another matter.  
We are aware that the road-user charge is a very controversial area of the transport industry. An independent study was undertaken and it is actually quite pleasing to see that the Minister has taken up some of the suggestions. For those reasons we support the bill being referred to a select committee.  
We have a number of concerns. Feedback to date suggests that people in smaller firms people who perhaps are not at the heavy freight side of the industry may end up shouldering a disproportionately larger proportion of the burden spread across the whole transport industry.  
Although we support the bill being referred to a select committee one area has caused the new spokesman to have a small measure of concern. We knew the bill was floating around somewhere and we thought we would test it. I must confess I have not rung my occasional confidante and buddy of days gone by Mr Ken Shirley. However more consultation could have been mandated by the Minister. There is a suggestion that a document was floating around that simplified the road-user charge system. A host of firms have said they have never seen that document. It was given to a narrow range of economic investors and commercial interests in the transportation— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Rubbish! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: OK maybe they were National Party mates. They would be only in the trucking industry because National does not like rail it certainly hates coastal shipping and it is disinterested in improving the operations of ports. In fact the Minister who introduced the bill made a point of telling representatives from the ports industry last week that they were on their own and that the global market would determine their future. A greater level of jettisoning of responsibility is quite difficult to imagine. 
If the Minister wants to introduce a new revenue-gathering system to the transportation industry if key firms are complaining that they were not adequately consulted if the document I have referred to was distributed to a narrow range of people and on the pages of the documents was the subheading “For discussion: not Government policy” and if it is going to be that broad then the Minister should provide an opportunity for all the stakeholders to have a say. Some of the stakeholders are those who were particularly excited—or should I say enraged—a few years ago and who organised those very successful I have to say truck protests. In fact a number of my cousins were driving those trucks. Give them an opportunity— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: You were in the cab too. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Yes unfortunately they were. I recall them threatening to run over a car I inherited from Steve Maharey for that short and eventful time I was a Minister. But they have seen the light. They have realised that they have now been marginalised by the quality of stewardship shown by the Minister who is interested in only one thing: building more superfluous motorways and not actually focusing on the cost structure confronting the people who move our goods and services around the country. 
I think that the watermark entered into each sheet that said “For discussion: not Government policy” shows that there has been a bit of circuitousness in the development of those ideas. But I am not surprised because any Government would not want to repeat what we went through. 
We look forward to a range of submissions coming to our select committee from the various interests in the transportation industry. I would point out though the hypothecation—what a delightful word—that was introduced under the high-quality leadership of Annette King. It enabled the scarce resources collected from the toilers in the transportation industry to be dedicated back to our transportation system. 
Although this debate is about charging those who move freight around—in particular about introducing some equity—I would particularly like to know whether this bill will reduce the need for the commercial vehicle investigation unit which creates for John Carter and me all sorts of dramas with our local trucking firms up north. However he is unlikely to have to carry that on as there are probably not a lot of trucks in Mauke Rarotonga Pukapuka and those other highly important islands that lie at the centre of our geopolitical relevance to the future of the Pacific. I could not think of a better person to take over in Rarotonga and I look forward to taking many rugby trips with the golden oldies team up there in the future. 
But let me come back to the Road User Charges Bill or RUC which has only a passing relevance— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: You’re just talking about another ruck. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well when that Minister can resume his guard and put on his boots again we will have a great deal more fondness for him. He has turned his back on the hallowed tradition of parliamentary rugby. 
But I will say that the Minister of Transport has made a particularly important point in terms of clamping down on evasion. There will be debate as to whether this bill has a remedy for operators who clock up miles but spend quite a lot of time off the roads—they spend time on forestry roads and private roads—and we will need to hear whether the remedy will work in practice. 
Modernising and improving the electronic system will worry the rogues in the industry because at the point when a warrant of fitness is issued and when the weights and distance travelled are measured we will no longer rely on the office staff or on the operator. Those matters will be dealt with through new technology which is hardly likely to be advanced by Minister Joyce given the debacle he is presiding over in relation to technology improvements in our rohe in provincial New Zealand. But having said that the boffins in the transportation part of the bureaucracy are convinced that they have a system that will lead to sweet execution and improve the manner within which information is collected and stored. Hopefully in the future that will lead to an improvement in the kinds of policies we have. 
During the select committee process we will also look forward to hearing about the way in which money is dedicated. There is a bias in terms of the dedication of money towards trophy projects. 
Mr Assistant Speaker I do not want that Minister moving too far away because the House will collapse again. We have 2 more minutes and I ask whether he could remain. I am sorry; I did not see the “battery hen” the Minister of Agriculture sitting on the frontbench. I am very sorry about that. [ 
Interruption 
] OK he is not a hen; I accept that. He is a “Peking duck”—a duck that is peeking out because he never ever makes any ballsy decisions in his portfolio and he hides behind his bureaucracy every single hour of the day. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You watch out when you get a hiding from Pita Sharples. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: It is not my fault that Hekia Parata proved to be a more reasonable better-looking and higher-qualified Maori than Tau Henare to come into Cabinet. I do not know why the rest of us should suffer his sense of rejection his sense of marginalisation. Hekia Parata has a greater— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ll have you know I’m the top twitterer. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: It is John Key’s problem as to why he chose Hekia Parata and why Michael Jones or Va’aiga Tuigamala will be the candidate against Phil Twyford and not my whanaunga Tau Henare. That actually has nothing to do with transport just as Tau Henare’s future has nothing to do with the long-term prospects of Parliament—nothing whatsoever. 
Now I will come back to this important bill. We support the bill being referred to a select committee. We look forward to hearing a range of submissions. We will hold our position in relation to whether or not we will support the bill through the entirety of the legislative process. We join with the Minister of Transport and encourage all and sundry to make as many submissions as possible but let them be of a better quality and of more relevance to the future of the industry than Mr Friedlander’s outgoing outburst was of all his frequent outbursts. That is why Ken Shirley is providing a great deal of information to members on this side of the House and he knows that balance is absent on the other side of the House. Kia ora tatou.