Jones Shane: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:676;Page:21772] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. First I acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport. He did something unusual this evening: he stood up and spoke and much of what he said proved to be lucid. I only hope that that lucidity helps him as he seeks to justify why this inordinately large amount of money is being wasted on an unnecessary extension of the expressway in his area but that is another matter. That is another matter. No doubt the good burghers and voters of that part of Aotearoa are turning red by the minute and will see red as he fails to provide a suitable explanation. He is a Minister who has a practical level of experience having come a wee bit like me from an agricultural background—although it has been a long time since the udder of the cow provided me with my direct income. 
I want to talk about Part 3 and I want to direct our attention to ensuring we enable people who feel they are being hard done by in the transport industry to enjoy a suitable opportunity when they are pinged to have—figuratively—their day in court. The system will work in a fashion that is not unlike the Inland Revenue Department. The regulator the road-user charges collector—either the Minister or through delegated authority the agency—will be required to pursue the laggards and those characters. I hope they are not to be found in Kaitaia and other such pleasant climes enjoyed by Kelvin Davis and occasionally but distantly by me. Those people from time to time will find that they have not followed the rules and regulations accurately. 
These things happen because under this Government the rules regulations and red tape have just grown like Topsy. I actually imagined that the transport sector would enjoy a purge a clean out but not a single bureaucratic prune has been administered by this Government in relation to simplifying the regulatory thicket that afflicts the transport sector. As I said last night if one is to bring in new regulations—and let us face it a lot of this stuff will be administered by dint of regulation—then strip two three four and administer a handsome dosage of Epsom salts to the bureaucratic body. Those of us who are the politicians will come and go but the administrators of the system by dint of their professional status and the fact that there always has to be a regulator will continue. The point I am making is that when an operator receives an assessment let us be very very loud in insisting that that operator have a decent opportunity to put their side of the story. 
I hope that the regulator has the balance between collecting revenue for the Government’s accounts—which are going further and further in the wrong direction so revenue is needed—and showing a pragmatic and even-handed approach. Many of the operators will own these vehicles and I think we will see a lot of these vehicles getting smaller not larger. It is a disappointment that despite the arrival of these road-user charges and the new regime etc. the larger vehicles are not actually on our roads because Steven Joyce the Minister of Transport has starved local government of improving the roads and the bridges that actually have to bear the weight of these large vehicles. But that too is another issue for the voters. The voters will be busy on 26 November as they find new and fresh ways to punish. It will not be David Bennett because unfortunately he will not register in this debate. I see Sue Moroney and a host of other very talented people circling their wagons around his declining fortunes in the Waikato. 
For firms that are operating—and I think of the firms in the provinces where the margins are slight—the system needs to cut them some slack. Cutting them some slack does not mean degrading the quality of the freight vehicles of the fleet but showing when we administer the system—we being the stewards of the State—that we can be pragmatic. It is possible under this particular part for the road-user charges collector to cancel a penalty. Well that is very unlikely because from time to time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Hon Shane Jones. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Thank you Mr Chair. There is nothing like quality to continue to persist and carry the waka forward. 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: Yes certainly let’s have some of it. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: That was an unfortunate remark from the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. In another world she was very appealing but now her own people quail because she sided with the mining industry. They live in fear that what passes for their environment is about to be turned into a great oil slick. But I am prepared to back her as the new Minister of Education. There are hand gestures—I see hand gestures coming from her. That is private; she should keep it to herself. 
I need to come back to the bill at hand. There is a faint connection. After all these freight fleet vehicles require oil of some description to continue. Of course we will hear from the Greens that there will be no more oil. We will hear from the Greens shortly an unfortunate observation that somehow we will have a fleet that will no longer be able to operate. It is good that they are provocative and it is good that they make those contributions but unfortunately it is the investors—it is the owners of the fleet at the end of the day—who need to make the changes. I hope that this bill enables them to do that when they are struggling through the bureaucratic thicket that comprises this legislation. 
There are a host of other provisions we must make note of in the Committee stage. After all we will be supporting this bill but such is the hallmark of the Committee stage in this House which is part of our constitutional process. Thousands of New Zealanders will by this time be watching the Rugby World Cup or whatever is happening tonight which is a very very disappointing feature of their night-time viewing as they are missing the opportunity to learn about having to pay more levies and being further penalised if they are in the position of being unfortunate enough to own a trucking business. It will be further weighed down if we are not careful by excessive levels of red tape. 
It is all very good to modernise electronic technology but one should choose the right type of technology. There is a host of options and we need to be confident that the Government is putting substance into the rhetoric of productivity innovation and a variety of other things and actually improving the options for the owners of the fleet to upgrade. 
I come back to the importance of keeping vehicle inspection records etc. which are mentioned in this part. If we have the right kind of technology—the application of electronic technology—then the owners of the firms and the owners of the vehicles will not be cursed or blighted by maintaining mountains of paperwork etc. in relation to the inspection of records and other sources of information that may unfortunately be used in the future to hammer them. I send not a siren call but a warning from those of us who have had experience in the private sector and who know that it is not all beer and skittles to own a transport firm. Not only are the compliance costs quite onerous but also one has to find skilled staff and maintain their wages at a competitive level. An element of parity has to be maintained so that we do not lose everyone to Australia. Unfortunately that is happening and not much that the Government has done passes muster in relation to stopping people from disappearing in that area. 
Part 3 provides for rights of appeal. Those rights are very important because during the implementation and the transition from the current regime to the new system there will be hiccups. 
Darien Fenton 
: There will be. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There most certainly will be hiccups. They are happening as we speak. 
Darien Fenton 
: Maybe a truckers strike. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I am not entirely sure whether the trucking fraternity is a little bit more French in their approach and they might visit their displeasure on the current Government. The only thing French about truck drivers that I know of does not bear repeating in this House so we will just taihoa and I might find another ethnic analogy in that regard. 
As I said there is an option for appeals and reviews but I sound a warning about anyone thinking that the option contained in clause 64 is usable. One would have to have an enormous amount at stake before one would want to go to the High Court to appeal on a matter of law. When one is confronted with an egregious level of wrongdoing by the State one can go one of two ways. One could go to a politician to the Minister and work up through the bureaucracy or if that fails one could hire a Queen’s Counsel and trot off to the High Court. Thank you very much.