Moroney Sue: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Moroney Sue: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5560] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. This is sensible legislation timid though it is. It is sensible because the initial work on it was done by the previous Labour Government. It seems that the only sensible pieces of legislation that the Government is bringing before the House happen to be legislation that had already been worked on by Labour and this bill is yet another example of that. 
This legislation causes us to reflect on exactly where our whole transport policy is going in this country. Although this bill is about reducing road-user charges for owners of electric cars I think we should stop and reflect on what that actually means. Is this a big bold move or is it timid? We know that the estimates are that there will be something in the order of 300 of these electric motor vehicles in New Zealand in the next 5 years. So in 5 years’ time there will be about 300 of these cars. My colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson talked about what that would mean in his neck of the woods—it means 10 electric cars would be owned in Dunedin. 
I am from the Waikato and roughly 10 percent of what happens in this country happens in that region. That would mean a grand total of 30 motor vehicles in the entire Waikato region—I am talking about 10 percent of our country—in the next 5 years. I think I can quite correctly guess without the backing of officials to tell me this information the 30 families in the Waikato who will have the financial resources to buy the very latest model on the market. It will not be the people we heard about today who are losing their jobs. So many people are losing their jobs in the recession because the Government does not have a plan for job creation. It will not be those people. The 300 people on the very highest incomes—probably business owners and landowners—will be the fortunate people in the Waikato who will benefit from not having to pay road-user charges because they happen to be the ones who will be able to afford the very latest thing on the market. I do not think we should fool ourselves—that will be the impact of this legislation. 
What is the Government doing in this area of transport? I want to broaden this discussion out and look at the whole transport area. We have heard the Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce refer to himself as the Minister for land transport. I think it tells us quite a lot that he refers to himself as the Minister for land transport when in fact transport involves sea rail and a whole lot of other areas of transport that do not happen to involve land transport. So I think we have some questions to ask the Minister over what he sees as being in his portfolio. 
Yesterday while debating this same bill I asked the Minister—and he did respond—whether he supported the proposal for a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. I was astounded—absolutely stunned—by his response. He stood in this very debating chamber and said he did not think he could give it his support because he could not understand how a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland might ease congestion on the roads. What sort of response is that from a Minister of Transport? He cannot understand that putting 70 to 100 people on a train in the morning when they would normally commute by car between Hamilton and Auckland would ease congestion on the road. I invite the Minister to drive from Hamilton to Auckland on any day of the week so he might understand that by the time he gets to the southern Auckland motorway the 70 to 100 cars that would not be on the road if we had a rail passenger process in place would be adding to the congestion on the southern Auckland motorway. I am not sure how the Minister thinks people from Auckland drive in a car and get to Auckland. Perhaps he thinks they do not use the southern motorway somehow but that is exactly the problem. 
The Minister obviously has not been well advised. He certainly has not got on top of his portfolio and he certainly seems to think that roading is the only way we can actually manage transport in this country. I have to say that the Minister is completely out of touch with New Zealanders. 
On the very good Labour MPs’ blog Red Alert I have blogged about the proposal to have a commuter train run from Hamilton to Auckland. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Who responded? 
SUE MORONEY 
: It has the highest number of comments and responses of any of the blogs on that website. It has smashed the record. That tells us that New Zealanders understand exactly what is going on with this Government. New Zealand responded to the blog which did have a very provocative title. The title was “Why do the Nats Hate Rail so Much?” and boy have those responses poured forth. People have come forward and given their stories. They have told us what they think about National members going around putting down a proposal for a rail service in Hamilton. National MPs are running around in Hamilton saying they do not want another rail passenger service in Hamilton. Why would they do that? 
That is the very question I have asked on that blog site. I asked: “Who’s prepared to hazard a guess on the real reason the Nats oppose rail transport?”. I do not think I could read out some of the responses in the House but here is a smattering of them. This comment is from a person using the name of Flower. She says: “As a Waikato girl by birth Aucklander by nature and living in Hamilton by choice”—go Hamilton—“I am thoroughly delighted by the idea of a regular train gig chugging the willing and the weary between the hustle and pace of Auckland and the tranquillity and bliss of Kirikiriroa. For Hamilton needs this and if David Bennett can not see the rail cars for truck tyres then more fool him. This isn’t just about getting those Hamilton[ians] to Auckland but getting Aucklanders to Hamilton! This city is growing it’s awakening it’s progressive and dare I say it [is] quite happening.” 
That is the sort of vision that ordinary New Zealanders are coming forward with—which this Government completely lacks. There is no leadership and no vision in this area. In the Government’s view the only thing that will transport things or people around this country will be private cars clogging up our roads. If we continue down that track we will continue to have the same old problem over and over again. 
It is not just ordinary New Zealanders who are concerned about this. I want to quote a couple of councillors in the Waikato. The councils are currently considering their submissions to this National Government’s fast tracking of the juggernaut proposal. This is the proposal to get larger trucks on our roads. Our roads are not designed and built to carry these trucks by the way but the Government will fast track this proposal through. I think it is absolutely clear from reading the comments of Waipa and Waikato district councillors that they have been bullied by the Government on this issue. Here is a quote from councillor Peter Lee who happens to be the deputy major of Waipa District Council. He says: “Get the freight off the road and on to rail. The Government seems determined to get more freight on the road despite owning a rail network.” I could not have said it better myself. Another councillor Michael Cox suggested that the rail argument should not be mentioned in a council submission because it would be seized upon by the Government “as a reason to damn it.” That is the word going around the local bodies in the Waikato region. The Government does not want rail and if someone dares to speaketh its name his or her submission will be damned. That is the message local bodies are picking up from the Government. 
I will continue and talk about what the Waikato District Council had to say about the rule. The council felt so bullied by the Government on this issue that even though it said that it knew that its roads could not cope with the juggernaut trucks and it knew about how much it would cost ratepayers and taxpayers in the future to have all the freight going by road in the much larger trucks—even though it knew all of that—one of the local people said in a council meeting: “If we submit in opposition it will be swept aside.” That particular council decided to go ahead and not put in its submission in opposition to the rule even though it quite clearly opposes the rule because it has been bullied by the Government to not talk about rail. People do not dare speaketh its name because the National Government will not take any notice of anyone who is advocating the very clear benefits of rail transport.