Woodhouse Michael: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5375] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in support of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill but I am a bit bemused at the comments by members opposite about the manner in which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee went about the consideration of this bill. I think Ms Fenton used the term “sketchily” when she referred to consideration of the bill. She wondered why the time for the report back was just one month and why the Minister had not given any justification for why the report back was so quick. We also heard from Mr O’Connor who was very articulate but slightly misinformed about the lack of consultation on the bill. Consultation was sought. It was sought from an organisation that represents 1.2 million road users the Automobile Association. It was also sought from the Bus and Coach Association and the Road Transport Forum both of which are very large diesel transport users. They represent the lion’s share of the owners of those vehicles. 
Eight of the nine organisations that were asked to submit did so. Although the time frame was tight there was certainly an opportunity for oral submissions if they were sought. Only one of those organisations sought one and then it withdrew that decision. During the consideration of the bill not a single word came from the Opposition about a lack of consultation or unseemly haste. In fact everybody seemed to think that the bill was very strong tight and appropriate for what was intended. I have no doubt that some of the amendments suggested during that consideration will be discussed during the Committee stage. 
I am sure I am not the only member and I am sure there are many members on this side of the House who get the irony of the Labour Opposition complaining about a lack of consultation regarding road-user charges. That is really interesting when one casts one’s mind back to 30 June last year when the then Minister of Transport Mrs King without any sort of notice imposed road-user charge increases to take effect on the following day. As we know that tapped into a very deep vein of disaffection. 
Hon Annette King 
: What happened the year before? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The year before the Minister undertook to give a month’s notice to the road transport lobby and the road transport lobby said that she went back on that agreement. In fact what the lobby really said was: “We understand. We don’t agree but we understand why the Minister was worried about the significant cost impact of a lead-in in the arbitrage that might go on.” I think there are some debatable points around that given that the Crown has significant investments to earn interest from. The road-user industry cannot just simply go out and buy squillions of dollars worth of credits if they cannot pass that cost on. There are some cash-flow implications but that was not the point. The point was that the Minister said she would consult and the industry said that she did not. 
Members know what we saw: rush-hour gridlock when the industry decided to vent its anger. What did the public say about that? They said “Good on you!” because they shared the mushrooming feeling that the Labour Government had spent 9 years saying one thing and doing another. That is why the response seemed to an out-of-touch Government to be quite disproportionate to the issue. But it was important to the industry and it quickly became important to the electorate. 
But the solution was not that difficult was it? All that was needed was a Minister who was prepared to listen and for plenty of notice to be given which is important to industries that need time to build those cost increases into their fees. That is something that Opposition members might not understand or care about but it is very important to the issue. The select committee had the pleasure of the company of the legal-eagle eye of the member for Selwyn Amy Adams. She has pointed out a potential ambiguity in the relevant clause that gives notice of the increase but limits the time for the use of the credits bought prior to the increase to 30 days. I understand that that will be fixed by a Supplementary Order Paper but that is again I think a measure of the calibre of the present Minister the Hon Steven Joyce who is prepared to listen and build those nuances into the legislation. I congratulate the Minister on his fair intelligent and decisive action in bringing this bill to the House and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on its speedy but I think thoughtful consideration. 
I will touch on the second main purpose of the bill which is to incentivise the purchase of light electric vehicles. In that regard we had the pleasure of the company of the Labour member Mr Barker who provided a useful challenge to the officials around the definition of a light electric vehicle the fact that it has to be plugged in and whether that definition was sufficiently broad to account for new technologies that might come about—for example solar power or the advancement of hybrid vehicles which are not included in this bill. I am advised that that is because there are not at present any diesel hybrids. I think that Mr Barker has a point about that but given that there is a sunset if you like on the exemption for light electric vehicles I am sure that those new technologies can be built in later. 
The other issue around light electric vehicles was raised by the Greens and in particular by Jeanette Fitzsimons at the select committee. On the one hand she was worried that there would be cost shifting from those who could afford light electric vehicles to those on lower incomes who had vehicles with much older technology. But at the same time we heard from Sue Kedgley in the debate on this bill that in fact probably no more than 30 vehicles would be purchased in that period. I do not think we can have it both ways. Either this is a problem for low-income people or it will not really be taken up. Thirty vehicles at that rate would probably add the sum total of about 0.25c on everybody else’s diesel road-user charges. 
But also I think it is important to reflect on what happened when we looked at something like liquor deregulation in the 1960s when it was brought in by I think that fine National member Ralph Hanan. When this House passed legislation enabling the licensing of restaurants in New Zealand he thought it was so good that we might have as many as 50 licensed restaurants in New Zealand. Well we probably have 50 licensed restaurants in the Octagon and a little bit around it. The point I am trying to make is that when we start small often from those small beginnings we have a very speedy roll-out. I think that very soon instead of 30 electric vehicles we will see several hundred then several thousand as the technology becomes more efficient and the cost of the technology comes down. 
So in 2013 will we be debating the extension of this measure? Who knows whether we will be extending it to include new technologies but I think this bill is a very good start and I certainly commend it to the House.